Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Mid-Wessex Water Bill [Lords.]

Bill to be read a Second time.

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): The Amendments in this case consist of protection Clauses in favour of the Somerset County Council and the Taunton Rural District Council, and drafting Amendments.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

WEY VALLEY WATER BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: The Amendments in this case consist of three protection Clauses for the benefit of the War Department, the Surrey County Council and the Ministry of Transport. The others are purely drafting.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

THE MONMOUTHSHIRE AND SOUTH WALES EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INDEMNITY SOCIETY LIMITED BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SAINT MARY MAGDALENE HOSPITAL (NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE) BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

NORTHERN IRELAND.

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the urgency of the situation and the necessity for placing soldiers at strategic centres in Northern Ireland, he will take immediate steps to have military assigned to convenient centres whose claims have been placed before him and where proper accommodation can be provided for their comfort?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Eden): The military garrison of Northern Ireland is already distributed so as best to accord with present strategic requirements. I am much obliged, however, to my hon. Friend for the suggestions which he has made to me, and I will bear them in mind.

Dr. Little: Will my right hon. Friend attend to this matter, as it is most pressing and urgent?

Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend is asking me to make certain changes in the strategic dispositions in Northern Ireland, and I am not prepared to discuss that in public.

Mr. Logan: Is it not possible to include the whole lot?

Mr. Eden: There is nothing I would like better.

Sir William Davison: Are the War Office in touch with Southern Ireland?

LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to provide the Local Defence Volunteers with the grenades known as Molotoff cocktails; alternatively, are they encouraged to provide their own, and how can they get the petrol required?

Mr. Eden: I am not prepared to make any public statement on this subject.

Mr. Cocks: Will the Minister circulate to hon. Members the recipe of this cocktail?

Mr. Eden: Yes, if they will promise to handle it all right.

Sir Richard Acland: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that all Local Defence Volunteers get the same instructions, because there are all sorts of instructions about these things?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider making use of ex-service men who have been trained as machine-gunners by forming them into mobile machine-gun columns, with machine-guns mounted on side-car combinations for service with the Local Defence Volunteers?

Mr. Eden: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it would not be desirable to disclose information on this subject.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the permission granted to members of the Local Defence Volunteers to wear the insignia of their rank in the last war makes discipline impossible in the present one and will he give orders that officers in the Local Defence Volunteers should display no insignia of rank other than those to which their immediate work entitles them?

Mr. Eden: Badges have been prescribed for the various grades of commanders in the Local Defence Volunteer Force, and instructions are being issued that officers and ex-officers, when on duty with that force, should not wear badges of rank held in another capacity.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite a number of them are still wearing the uniforms they had in the last war, and that in one company in East Sussex there are six different generals all dressed up as generals; and, although one does not want to impugn their patriotism, is it not a fact that the great mass of people of this country, while they do not mind Corporal Hitler—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Eden: I have heard something of that kind, and that is why instructions have been given.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether ex-officers are allowed to wear their old uniforms?

Mr. Eden: This is a question of badges of rank.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the desirability of forming a women's force auxiliary to the Local Defence Volunteers, on lines similar to the women's services auxiliary to the Army, Navy and Air Force?

Mr. Eden: I am aware of the patriotic desire of many women to serve in this way, and I am considering means of giving expression to it.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether this Force can be formed quickly, especially in view of the need for large numbers of additional workers such as observers, motor drivers, cyclists and so on?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how we are to fight in the hills, in the streets and in the houses, as envisaged by the Lord President of the Council on Sunday, if women are excluded from the Local Defence Volunteers?

Mr. Eden: That is a different question from this Question, which is about an auxiliary to the Local Defence Volunteers.

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the limited number of rifles available for Local Defence Volunteers he will make arrangements for soldiers on leave to reinforce that organisation in the locality where they happen to be at a time of an enemy attack, and, in order to do so effectively, order all soldiers on leave to carry their rifles and an adequate number of cartridges wherever they go?

Mr. Eden: Except for very special reasons, all leave has been stopped, and, in any event, it is thought best that, in emergency, soldiers should at once report to their own or the nearest military unit.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will take a decision that installation of telephones reasonably required by the Local Defence Volunteers shall take priority over installations required for private and commercial purposes and shall be made without charge; and whether the utmost possible efforts will be made to maintain


the telephone service of the Local Defence Volunteers in the most immediate possible contact with main exchanges both day and night?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Captain Waterhouse): In common with all other military telephone installations provided by the Post Office, orders for telephones for the Local Defence Volunteer organisation are accepted only from the competent military authorities, normally Chief Signal Officers of Army Commands, and rentals for them are payable by the same military authorities. These telephones are treated in all respects as military installations; consequently, their provision takes priority over installations required for private or commercial purposes and special arrangements are made to maintain efficient telephone service both day and night.

Sir R. Acland: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware of the case where the telephone, having been installed, was cut off on the grounds that the Local Defence Volunteers had not paid the quarterly charges for the telephone?

Captain Waterhouse: I have seen some reference to that in the Press, and if the hon. Member would like to write to me about it, I will go into it.

REGISTRATION AND INTAKE.

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether facilities are now available for young men of military age who are registered but are still in civilian life to have the opportunity of learning the early stages of military training, so that time is not wasted?

Mr. Eden: With the exception of a few special categories, all men registered up to the end of May have been called up. In addition, the intake is being accelerated, and this will affect those who are now being registered.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many men who volunteered last September are still waiting for their services to be used?

Mr. Eden: I am not aware of that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me some information.

Sir Robert Young: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some men who have been medically examined, but have not been called up and do not know why?

LEAVE (TRAVEL).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience is being caused to soldiers sent from one part of the country to another, on leave, by the failure to provide them with sufficient food or money for the journey; and whether he will take steps to prevent such occurrences in future?

Mr. Eden: Instructions have been issued on this subject, but, if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will have them investigated.

Mr. Mander: I shall be glad to do that, but the complaints are widespread throughout the country.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that soldiers going on, or returning from, leave whose journey is lengthy shall be permitted to use vacant first-class seats when other seats are not available and whether he will consider the granting of more frequent leave to home-serving soldiers with more than one year's service, if circumstances permit, so as to enable them to spend some days at home each quarter?

Mr. Eden: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that the railway staff have latitude, if a train is seriously overcrowded, to allow serving members of the Forces to occupy available seats in first-class compartments As regards the second part of the Question, in present circumstances leave can be given only in exceptional circumstances, but the normal rule has been that soldiers serving at home are eligible for seven days' leave every three months.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that information regarding this decision is not generally known, because numbers of soldiers are still left to stand in the corridors of long-distance trains?

Mr. Eden: I think the publication of this Question and Answer will assist in making the position known.

Mr. George Griffiths: When did the Minister give this instruction, because only this morning I saw men turned out of a first-class carriage?

Mr. Eden: The giving of instructions would be a matter for the Minister of Transport. I hope these Questions and Answers will result in the necessary publicity being given to the matter.

VACCINATION AND INOCULATION.

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a poster, informing Army recruits that vaccination and inoculation are voluntary, exhibited at the London Midland and Scottish Station, Bradford, has been objected to by the military authorities; and will he give instructions that all such efforts to deprive recruits of knowledge of their rights shall cease forthwith?

Mr. Eden: I have made inquiries and am unable to find that any military authority has objected to the poster in question. If my hon. Friend has any information on the subject, perhaps he will let me have it.

WOMEN DOCTORS.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the appointment of a woman doctor of senior rank has yet been made to each command?

Mr. Eden: An appointment is about to be made in the Eastern Command. Similar appointments in other commands are not considered to be necessary at present.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor said some months ago that at no distant date an appointment would be made in every command, and as that was quite understood, will he reconsider the position?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I have not had time to find what my predecessor said about it. We have made this appointment to this area, where, I gather, it is most needed.

Dr. Summerskill: What is the reason for granting commissions in the Army to women doctors but excluding them from the higher ranks, although they possess the highest qualifications obtainable?

Mr. Eden: That is a rather wider question than the one on the Paper.

Captain Bellenger: What rank will this lady have?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot say without notice.

AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the desirability of a reorganisation of the Auxiliary Territorial Service; and when is there a likelihood of any action being taken?

Mr. Eden: Shortly after the outbreak of war, the organisation of the Auxiliary Territorial Service was adapted to the needs of the Army in war. The very considerable changes involved have been applied gradually to avoid undue dislocation, but I hope that, when the changes are complete, most of the criticisms raised against the Service will have been met.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor asked his Under-Secretary to carry out an investigation into the organisation of the Auxiliary Territorial Service? When will that investigation be undertaken, in view of the fact that it is the opinion of a great many responsible people that conditions need inquiring into?

Mr. Eden: As I have said, considerable changes have been carried out, and some are in process of being carried out now.

Miss Ward: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I reserve to myself the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment if necessary.

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the appointment of the Director of the Auxiliary Territorial Service was made for a specific period?

Mr. Eden: The director of the Auxiliary Territorial Service was lent by the University of London for a year beginning on 3rd July, 1939 further arrangements being left for later consideration. Since mobilisation, the director, equally with all ranks of the Auxiliary Territorial Service, is held by the terms of her enrolment, under which the Army Council can terminate her service by 15 days' notice in writing.

ACCOMMODATION, RAILWAY STATIONS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the assurance that rest-rooms, together with suitable washing facilities, are to be provided for the use of the men


of His Majesty's Forces at the principal railway terminal stations; and also, that opportunities for obtaining refreshments at moderate prices will be assured to them during the course of long railway journeys?

Mr. Magnay: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has been able to do anything in the way of improving the accommodation for the troops at the railway termini in London and also for their greater comfort when travelling?

Mr. Eden: The main line railway termini in London have been inspected by representatives of the War Office and of all the philanthropic bodies who deal with troops at those termini, and details of the additional accommodation and facilities required are being worked out. The object is to provide at each station a rest room, dining room, cooking facilities, information bureau, free washing room and lavatories, and free cloakroom on the same scale as now exists at Victoria Station. As soon as possession of the rooms required is obtained, the work of structural alteration and equipment will be begun. The Ministry of Transport have been informed of the proposals respecting Euston Station, and have arranged with the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company for all the additional accommodation required to be made immediately available. The work of preparing this accommodation has already begun. Reports have been called for from Command Welfare Officers regarding all important main line stations outside London, with the same object in view. As regards refreshments, in addition to the normal facilities available to all travellers, there is a number of stations at which local philanthropic bodies cater for men in uniform free of charge.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the railway companies be made to provide the accommodation free of charge, or will they charge rent to these voluntary bodies?

Mr. Eden: The object is to provide certain facilities, which I have mentioned, free of charge.

Mr. Hall: But I mean, will the voluntary bodies be charged rents?

Sir W. Davison: Will these facilities be made immediately available for the men, say to-night or to-morrow night, or will it take some weeks?

Mr. Eden: I have been into this matter personally, and I know that there is a very considerable improvement at Euston.

Mr. Lindsay: Are there funds from the War Office to assist these welfare societies which are helping, or is it entirely a voluntary effort?

Mr. Eden: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would put that question down. The important matter is to get things done quickly, and I am satisfied that that is being done.

Mr. Levy: Who was responsible for the neglect which allowed the creation of the old state of affairs?

Mr. Harvey: With regard to refreshments, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are not voluntary societies making these provisions in all the places to which troops go who have to undertake these long journeys, and that continual supervision by the War Office is necessary in order to ensure that adequate arrangements are provided?

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: In view of the widespread indignation with regard to the lack of consideration for the comfort of the troops in this respect, will the right hon. Gentleman immediately exercise compulsory powers to deal with the railway companies?

BUILDING QUESTIONS (APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the recommendations in the third report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, he has taken any steps to secure that the War Department have the advice and help of civilian experts in carrying out their building programme?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. A committee has been set up to advise the Army Council on building questions, including the placing of works contracts and the supervision of works in progress. The members of the committee are:

Mr. J. Jameson, C.B.E. (Chairman);
Mr. M. T. Tudsbery, M.Inst.C.E.;
Mr. C. E. Elcock, F.R.I.B.A.;
Mr. Arthur S. Ainsley.

The committee has already started on its work.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNEES.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have yet been taken to separate into different internment camps those aliens who are likely to suffer from the Hitler régime from those who approve of it and to ease the conditions of the former by allowing them to work and to have their wives and children with them?

Mr. Eden: Steps which were being taken to effect separation were interrupted by the recent further intakes of internees, but will be resumed as soon as practicable. As regards the second part of the Question, I regret that it is also impossible to pursue these matters until more settled conditions as regards internment have been attained.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does that mean that no steps can be taken at present to get the wives with their husbands?

Mr. Eden: We have had a large number of internees to deal with, and as soon as that position is reasonably sorted out I hope to deal with this question.

Mr. Leach: Is it the intention of the War Office to fall in with the suggestion in the last part of the Question and allow friendly aliens who are interned to be with their families?

Mr. Eden: I tried to answer that. We have begun work on it, but we have had to take in a large number of internees, and as soon as the position is sorted out I hope to be able to do that.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now permit controlled wireless and the circulation of newspapers or a news bulletin in internment camps, whether he is recruiting volunteers for the Pioneer Corps from internees and whether he will allow suitable internees to be recruited for group agricultural labour under suitable supervision?

Mr. Eden: Selected programmes are broadcast under the control of the camp commandants, and it is proposed to arrange shortly for news bulletins to be posted. The matters referred to in the second and third parts of the Question are under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, which I am sure will bring a great deal of benefit to these internees, may I ask whether he appreciates that a number of the men interned have been well-known fighters against Nazism and are anxious to serve us?

Mr. Eden: I appreciate the complexities of the situation, and I am sure that the hon. Member does so too.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman also appreciate that the need for the services of these internees can never be greater than it is at the present time, especially in connection with the harvest, and will a decision be reached in time for that?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH AND CZECH FORCES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make with reference to the arrival of Polish and Czech units in this country?

Mr. Eden: Some units of the Polish and Czech Armies have arrived in this country and are being reorganised. I am not in a position to add to this statement at present, except to say that these units are a very welcome reinforcement in the struggle against our common enemy.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINING ROYALTIES (VALUATION).

Mr. Salt: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the work of valuation of mining royalties under the Act of 1938?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): This matter has been carefully considered in the light of the new war situation, and the Government are satisfied that it is in the national interest that the work of valuation should proceed as rapidly as possible, subject, however, to the overriding condition that it is not allowed to interfere with necessary coal production.

ACCIDENT, VALLEYFIELD PIT.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet received


a report of the inquiry into the Valley-field pit disaster; whether any recommendations have been made; and what steps he proposes to take?

Mr. Grenfell: I have been in communication with the Commissioner, and he has informed me that he hopes to complete his report shortly.

Mr. Gallacher: When the report is presented will a copy of it be placed in the Library?

Mr. Grenfell: I must see the report first.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he will arrange that the basic petrol ration for a motor car shall, like the supplemental, be determined by the purpose's for which the motor car is required and not by its horse-power?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): In present circumstances I do not think that the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion would, on balance, be an advantage.

Mr. Lipson: Is my hon. Friend aware that many commercial travellers who are using low horse-power cars for business purposes are very much concerned because people with higher horse-power cars who use them for joy riding get much more petrol and will he at least see that a more generous supplementary allowance is given to people who use their cars for business purposes?

Mr. Lloyd: I will consider any representations that the hon. Member makes.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman also give full consideration to the cost in shipping tonnage and naval tonnage of every gallon of petrol which is used unnecessarily in high horse-power cars; and would it not be possible to secure a substantial diminution in the consumption of petrol by requiring lower horse-power cars to be used on Government service?

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS TRADE.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the progress made in the organisation of groups of industries for

the development of overseas trade under the direction of the Export Council of the Board of the Trade?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): Some 200 Export Groups have been formed, and a full list of these was published in the Board of Trade Journal on 20th June.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the formation of further groups going on satisfactorily?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir, it is going on very satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he will state, so far as the national interests permit, what alterations of policy have been introduced in his Department during the last five weeks; and whether he can indicate, so far as is possible, the effect of any such alterations?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): The policy of my Department is to deny to the enemy, so far as possible, all goods and services which may aid his war effort. A number of events, which have taken place during the past five weeks, have changed the conditions and the methods of waging economic warfare, but, as the hon. Member himself realises, it would be contrary to the national interest to indicate these changes in detail, at any rate in a public Session of this House.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether suitable measures have been taken to extend the blockade to the territory of France under German and Italian control?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this blockade applies also to unoccupied France and the French Colonies, and is he also keeping in mind the fact that Germany now has a through railway route to Spain?

Mr. Dalton: So far as what is called "unoccupied France" is concerned, contraband control is being exercised in such a way as to prevent goods reaching the enemy through any part of France. So far as the French Colonies are concerned, the decision on this point has been deferred until the situation in those Colonies


has become clear. So far as the third point raised by my hon. Friend is concerned, perhaps he will be so good as to put it down.

Mr. Thorne: Are you keeping a sharp eye on next door?

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of affording to the Minister of Economic Warfare an opportunity to make a statement about the work of his Department in Secret Session so that Members may be in a better position to judge what useful purpose is now served by this Department; and whether the results likely to be achieved justify the whole-time employment of over 1,000 persons, many of them highly paid?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend would welcome an opportunity to make a statement in Secret Session on the work of his Department. If this is generally desired, the necessary arrangements can be made in the usual way.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERO ENGINES (OVERSEAS PRODUCTION).

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production why the American Ford plant has refused to undertake the manufacture of aircraft engines for this country; and whether he will assure the House that there are no difficulties or delays in making available the most up-to-date British designs for production in the Dominions or the United States of America?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I have been asked to reply. Negotiations for the manufacture of Rolls Royce aero engines in the United States by the Ford Motor Company have broken down as a result of a stipulation by Mr. Henry Ford that his company would make aero engines solely for the defence of the United States. As regards the second part of the Question, I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

GREYHOUND RACE MEETINGS.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the

number of police engaged each week in controlling traffic, regulating crowds and protecting officials at dog race meetings in the Metropolitan area; and whether he will prohibit all such meetings to release the officers so engaged for more useful service?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): Fifty-six Metropolitan police officers were engaged for between two to three hours each, during the week ended 29th June, in controlling traffic and members of the public outside greyhound race meetings. No police are engaged to protect officials. My right hon. Friend does not consider that he would be justified in prohibiting these meetings on this ground alone.

Mr. Butcher: Would the hon. Gentleman take the sense of the House in this matter?

Sir Herbert Williams: How many police are engaged in regulating traffic to theatres and cinemas and other forms of amusement?

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large part of the supply of grain is used in feeding greyhounds?

Mr. Gallacher: How many police are used to attend Communist party meetings from which they could quite easily be withdrawn?

Captain Sir William Brass: How many police are wasting their time in timing motor cars over straight roads?

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Home Secretary whether steps will be taken to provide ample supplies of concrete shelters through his Department, either free or at a low cost, for those in dangerous areas who have not been able to obtain Anderson steel shelters?

Mr. Mabane: Since the manufacture of standard steel shelters was discontinued, the provision of alternative shelters in brick or concrete has been pressed forward. The cost of the materials used in the construction of these shelters when provided for householders who are entitled to free domestic shelter, is paid in full by the Government. I have no reason to believe that the provision of shelters of this kind is being held up by shortage of supplies of material.

Mr. Parker: Is authority given to local authorities to build these shelters?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the representations of the burgh of Buckhaven and Methil, Fife, on the subject of the public air-raid shelters in the burgh which is now classified as a neutral area; and whether, in view of these representations, he will take steps to have the burgh reclassified as a dangerous area?

Mr. Mabane: I understand that the burgh authorities have already been informed by the Regional Commissioner that he is prepared to approve the provision of shelter on an increased scale.

RESERVOIRS AND WATERWORKS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that adequate military protection against sabotage and also attacks in force by the enemy is now afforded to all important reservoirs and waterworks of the country?

Mr. Eden: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to deal in public with detailed questions of national defence.

Mr. Adams: May one take it that the protection desired will be afforded promptly?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman may take it that we have not overlooked this matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety among public utility undertakings in regard to this matter; and if I brought to his notice cases in which undertakings were said to be not adequately protected, would he have them looked into?

Mr. Eden: I cannot allow this matter to pass without making it clear to the House that the defence of the country is dependent upon such things as mobility, which may not be always apparent.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, for one, have sent in requests several times in respect to this matter, and am very concerned about it?

WAR WORKERS (AIR RAIDS).

Mr. Simmonds: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there

is a widespread desire among the workers in war industries to be allowed to remain at work during periods of air-raid warning until local danger appears imminent; and whether he will, under proper safeguards, arrange for such continued work to be permitted?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir; and it is the considered view of the Government that, in order to defeat any efforts by the enemy to dislocate production in our war industries, workers engaged in war production should be encouraged, so far as their local conditions allow, to continue at work after a public air-raid warning, until it is clear that an enemy attack is actually imminent in their neighbourhood. I should like to take this opportunity of explaining, in view of misconceptions that seem to have arisen in certain quarters, that the position in regard to the giving of public air-raid warnings remains in substance as stated on 25th October last by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Secretary of State for Air. My right hon. Friend then made it clear that the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Fighter Command, must, in practice, exercise a discretion, in order to avoid unnecessary and undue interference with civil life, and that it must therefore happen on occasion, and should be accepted as a matter of course, that attack on a limited scale may develop over an area in which no previous warning has been given. This discretion must continue to be exercised, in the light of conditions as they may develop, by the Commander-in-Chief in whose judgment, as my right hon. Friend said, His Majesty's Government have complete confidence.

Mr. Simmonds: Will my right hon. Friend therefore see that an instruction is immediately issued, so that employers of labour may have direct direction from the Government to continue work during a period of air-raid warning, because that is most essential?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that this matter will be taken up by my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Supply Department.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain arrangements have been made in many cases between


employers of labour and workmen's organisations, and will he see that they are now overridden?

Sir J. Anderson: I assume that the matter will be handled in that way, because conditions differ in different factories.

Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman constantly bear in mind that loss of hours of sleep is at least as important as loss of hours of work?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, that fact is taken into account, and is implicit in my reference to undue and unnecessary interference with civil life.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Would it not be wiser to assume that anti-aircraft fire in the vicinity would be a signal?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will look at my answer.

EMPTY HOUSES (POLICE INSPECTION).

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Home Secretary whether he will instruct local authorities to see that empty houses in their districts are regularly inspected by the local police?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The police pay attention to empty houses, in the normal course of their duties. In view of the heavy calls upon the available police resources at the present time, it would not be possible for them to undertake any additional responsibilities in this respect.

Mr. Hammersley: Does my hon. Friend realise that some houses are left empty for a long time and that, in isolated localities, they may be a potential source of danger?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir, that is so, and that is the reason why the police have instructions to pay particular attention to them; but I would remind my hon. Friend that wide powers of search and entry into premises are now enjoyed by the police under the new Defence Regulations.

Mr. Thorne: Have not the local authorities the powers that are necessary?

Mr. Peake: That is a separate question from that of action by the police.

EVACUATION.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make plain to the public that evacuation from one part of the country to another or overseas is unnecessary and productive of despondency and alarm except under official control and direction; and whether he will at once put a check on this refugee spirit?

Mr. Attlee: In the leaflet "If the Invader Comes" recently issued to all householders, it has been made clear that in general it is the duty of members of the civilian population to stay where they are and carry on with their work unless orders to the contrary are given to them by a competent authority. Every suitable opportunity is being taken, and will continue to be taken, to repeat and reinforce the general advice already given; and special advice to particular classes of persons will also be given as occasion demands.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the example set by wealthy and leisured classes at the present time in evacuating their children and themselves all over the country, and can he not make it much more plain than has hitherto been the case that such a policy does not meet with the approval of the Government?

Mr. Attlee: I think it has been made plain that the Government are not in favour of panic evacuation. A reasonable evacuation under proper conditions is part of the ordinary policy of defence, but certainly there should be nothing like panic evacuation, whether by wealthy persons or by anyone else.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many constituencies, certainly in my own, that type of panic evacuation is going forward now?

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it sufficient merely for the Government to say that the Government are not in favour of this evacuation; and does he not think that such an attitude throws on many individuals doubt as to what is the proper course for them to take, and that that very doubt is productive of worry and alarm?

Mr. Attlee: I think that the advice issued in the leaflet shows quitely plainly what the Government consider is the duty of the individual.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister not realise that the answer which he has given just now creates very grave doubts? It has been the understanding of all Members that dispersion is the policy of the Government. Now do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that it is changed, and that people are to remain now in places where they are?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. The hon. Member is quite mistaken. What I said was that a proper evacuation under proper conditions from certain places is part of the Government's policy, but that general panic evacuation is not part of the policy.

Sir R. Acland: What is the use of that answer? What is a proper evacuation? We have not any idea what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Mr. David Adams: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the decision that the evacuation of schoolchildren is to be upon a voluntary basis, he has arranged that full compulsory education, medical inspection and treatment, school meals and milk shall be available to schoolchildren in all areas of the country?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): Compulsory full-time education, medical inspection and treatment and milk are available generally in reception and neutral areas and in evacuation areas, so far as the safety of the children permits. The normal facilities for school meals are also generally available, but these are, as they were also before the war, less extensive than the facilities for the supply of milk.

Mr. Adams: Do I understand from that answer that full facilities on the lines that I have indicated will shortly be provided throughout the country?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. They are available now except in a very limited part of the evacuation areas.

Mr. Adams: Why should those parts of the country be excluded?

Mr. Ede: Local authorities in certain evacuation areas have not yet made full provision for the safety of the children who would be compulsorily made to attend the schools if they were opened.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLES).

Captain Strickland: asked the Attorney-General what steps have been

taken to give insurance cover for third party and other risks to all those Local Defence Volunteers and air-raid precautions workers who use their motor cars and motor cycles in the course of their duties and whose present policies do not cover war risks?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I have been asked to reply. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that Civil Defence workers required by local authorities to use their motor cars and motor cycles on duty are covered as regards third party and passenger claims and damage to their cars, except where due to war operations, by the Civil Defence policy. Compensation for loss or damage to their cars due to war operations may be claimed on the footing of requisitioned cars, in accordance with Section 4 (1) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. The position of vehicles used for Local Defence Volunteer purposes is somewhat different. Such use is permissive, and it is understood that the use of private cars for these purposes (except in connection with war operations) is generally accepted by insurance companies, within the cover and subject to any restrictions indicated on individual policies. Damage due to war risks is excluded by all types of policy, and damage coming under this head would normally fall to be dealt with under the Government scheme of compensation. Certain points in connection with Local Defence Volunteer use of cars are under further discussion with the insurers. Personal injuries received by volunteers, if arising out of and in the course of duty or due to war injuries, would fall under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1939, or under the scheme of compensation for Local Defence Volunteers, as the case may be.

Captain Strickland: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind the urgency of coming to a decision with the insurance companies in view of the grave doubt that there is among local volunteer corps as to their position, and will he treat the matter as being urgent?

Sir E. Grigg: I do not quite understand, but, generally speaking, there is no doubt. Doubt arises only in regard to certain individual and limited policies. In that case the insured people must consult the insurance companies, although the


Secretary of the Territorial Association will very gladly help them.

Sir T. Moore: Would not my hon. Friend again consider the point which was dealt with last week of having an unlicensed and laid-up car to each group headquarters of the Local Defence Volunteers?

Sir E. Grigg: Consideration is being given to that point, but there are objections to the use of unlicensed cars in an indiscriminate manner.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

CHEMISTS.

Mr. Logan: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are 24,000 chemists and 12,000 chemists' businesses in England and Wales; and whether he will take steps to include these businesses, together with those in Scotland, under central Government control during these days of emergency, and thereby assist in the great national war effort?

Mr. Peake: I am not clear as to the grounds on which it is suggested that central control of this particular class of retail business would contribute to the national war effort, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will communicate to me the considerations which he has in mind.

Mr. Logan: My object in putting the Question to the hon. Gentleman is to ask that chemists' shops in congested areas might be used as first-aid centres.

Mr. Peake: The only interest of the Home Office in chemists' shops as such is in regard to the requirements of certain Acts of Parliament dealing with the sale of poisons, but I will convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Logan: I am anxious, not that people should be poisoned, but to keep them alive, and I want this service throughout the country, especially in congested areas, to be used in emergencies for first-aid purposes. Can it be done?

UNEMPLOYMENT (LONDON).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention

has been drawn to the continued high level of unemployment in the Metropolitan area; and what steps are being used to bring this reserve of labour into the national war effort?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): The number of those unemployed in the London division has fallen considerably since the beginning of the year. It must be recognised, however, that the opportunities for normal employment in that area have been greatly reduced owing to war-time measures, and this process will be intensified in the near future. It will be necessary in a large number of cases for those thrown out of employment to be prepared to take work in other districts, and in appropriate cases the Ministry of Labour will pay lodging allowances. Many of the men will be suitable for engineering training in the Government centres, and I hope that they will take advantage of the opportunities which exist in this direction.

MAN-POWER.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the enrolment and training of men to the limits of our man-power in view of changed circumstances and the fact that sea-borne invasion on a serious scale is a remote contingency?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot accept the view of my hon. and gallant Friend that present circumstances warrant any relaxation in the efforts of His Majesty's Government to utilise to the full the manpower of the nation.

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Mr. Salt: asked the Lord President of the Council whether any representatives of the Dominions operate in conjunction with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; and what arrangements are made for looking into inventions submitted to that Department by Dominion inventors?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Chamberlain): Close contact is maintained directly between the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the corresponding research departments in the Dominions. Publications and reports are exchanged, and immediate consultation is


usual on all matters of common interest. Additional contacts are provided through the High Commissioners representing Dominion Governments in this country. In particular, the Food Investigation Board of the Department, being intimately concerned with certain of the primary products of the Dominions contains representatives of the several High Commissioners. No arrangements other than those normally made in the Department for the consideration of inventions are required for the consideration of the small number of inventions submitted to the Department by Dominion inventors.

Mr. Salt: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has an adequate staff to enable it to investigate quickly, and to sort out, the large number of inventions which are submitted at the present time, some of which might be of the greatest value in connection with the prosecution of the war; and whether he will consider the desirability of adding to the present staff and utilising the services of the large number of persons with scientific qualifications whose names are on the Central Register but who are still without useful employment?

Mr. Chamberlain: The number of inventions submitted to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is not large, and the Department's existing staff is adequate to deal quickly with those which it receives. In any event, inventions such as those relating to munitions of war, or other military, naval, air or home defence problems are referred immediately to the appropriate other Department. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Lord President of the Council yet realise that this is a war of science and engineering, and that there is no scientist or engineer in the Government; and that it is about time that that was put right?

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling among a large number of scientific workers that really useful inventions are not being adequately examined; and will he consider whether some wider and better plan can be adopted for the consideration of these inventions?

Mr. Chamberlain: The Question related to inventions submitted to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. There are not many inventions submitted to that Department. There are, of course, research departments in other Departments of State, to which inventions are submitted. Questions about those should be submitted to the Ministers responsible.

DEFENCE WORKS (LABOUR).

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the immediate formation under compulsory powers of a civilian labour corps, as a supplement to the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps, to include, among others, suitable able-bodied unemployed and registered conscientious objectors, engaged at Army rates of pay, to assist the military authorities in the rapid construction of defensive works throughout the country, thus avoiding the expense of contract labour for such purposes?

Mr. Assheton: My right hon. Friend has consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, with whom rests the responsibility for deciding what defence works are necessary. He understands that defence works are at present being carried out partly by contract, and partly by the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps. Consideration is being given to the question of supplementing by other methods the work done in this way; but, in existing circumstances, where speed and efficiency are of major importance, my right hon. Friend does not think it would be desirable to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

Major Lloyd: Is the hon. Member aware that this does not entirely represent the view of the military authorities, who have to pay a very high price indeed for contract labour? Why should the Government be so afraid of the word "compulsion," when we have given them compulsory powers?

Mr. Assheton: That question is certainly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and not for me.

DETENTION OF A MEMBER.

Captain Shaw: asked the Home Secretary whether or not the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and


Peebles (Captain Ramsay) has been given an opportunity for consulting his solicitor in private or of instructing counsel to represent him before the Advisory Committee; and, as a person detained in prison for over five weeks, without any charge being brought against him, subjected to 20 hours solitary confinement out of 24 hours and only allowed one visitor and two letters a week, cannot adequately prepare and present his case before the tribunal, whether he will make sure that proper assistance is afforded in this case?

Mr. Peake: Every application for a visit to the hon, and gallant Member from his solicitor has been granted, and a solicitor has in fact visited him on four occasions between 15th and 29th June. The instructions to prison governors provide for the supervision of all such visits, and it is not possible to make exceptions in individual cases; but I can find no ground for the suggestion that the hon. and gallant Member has been deprived of any necessary facilities for preparing the case he may wish to present to the Advisory Committee.

Captain Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Advisory Committee refused the application of the hon. and gallant Member to see a solicitor in private? Does he not consider that the hon. and gallant Member is entitled to normal legal advice?

Mr. Peake: The prison authorities have instructions to treat people detained under Regulation 18B with every possible consideration. The statement that the hon. and gallant Member is allowed only four hours' association with others in Brixton Prison is, in fact, untrue. He is allowed association and exercise for periods of between seven and eight hours. In regard to the question of seeing his solicitor in private, I think it must be borne in mind that an element of national security is involved in all these cases under Regulation 18B, and I do not think that anybody who has a clear conscience would in the least mind his visits being supervised.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the proceedings will be open to the, public, and can he indicate in what way there is any risk to national security?

Mr. Peake: I should have thought it was perfectly clear that the proceedings before the Advisory Committee must be held in private.

Captain Shaw: Why should not the hon. and gallant Member see his solicitor in private? Does my hon. Friend not trust the legal profession, and does he consider that a Cabinet Minister, if charged with endangering the safety of the country, could defend himself properly if subjected to treatment such as the hon. and gallant Member has suffered?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SENIOR POSTS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the strong feeling that exists that many of the senior Civil Service posts are occupied by people so trained in peace time Treasury methods as to be unable to give the most efficient service in war-time when quite other methods are required; and whether in such cases he will take steps to replace them by men who are capable of initiative and of giving rapid decisions?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that experience justifies the reflection upon members of the Civil Service contained in my hon. Friend's Question. I am satisfied that the service in all its ranks is fully capable of discharging quickly and efficiently the duties entrusted to it.

Mr. Cocks: Will the Committee appointed by the Government to look into the Treasury put an end to the unfortunate influence of Sir Horace Wilson?

Mr. Stokes: Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that the country is absolutely fed up with the stagnation in the Civil Service?

Captain Markham: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Members of this House who send letters which are answered by civil servants often have to wait a month before they get an answer?

Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us are greatly perturbed because Ministers are not aware of some things about which every back bencher knows?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not unfair to the Civil Service? Ought we not to blame


the Ministers themselves? Civil servants have to carry out the orders of the Ministers.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the fact that the Emergency Services Act, passed by this House a month ago, is still not in force is due to some of the causes mentioned by the hon. Member in the Question?

MILITARY SERVICE.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider releasing for military service a large percentage of civil servants in Government offices of military age, and replacing them where necessary by business men above military age?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): Large numbers of civil servants are already serving in His Majesty's Forces, and the present ages of reservation have been fixed as representing a fair balance between the needs of the Armed Forces on the one hand, and of the administration of Government on the other. The question of a revision of the existing ages is kept periodically under review, in the light of circumstances.

OFFERS OF SERVICE.

Sir G. Mitcheson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the continued refusal of Government Departments to use the services of many competent persons solely because their age exceeds a prescribed limit; and will he authorise the abolition of this limit?

Captain Crookshank: I have no evidence that Government Departments are refusing, on the grounds of age, to use the services of competent persons. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMATION OF PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide time for a discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife?

[That this House is of opinion that the time has come for a complete reorganisa-

tion of the Government in the form of a real People's Government from which all those associated with the policy of appeasing Fascism are rigidly excluded and which will immediately conscript wealth, nationalise the key industries, banks, transport and mines, provide increased pay for men in the Armed Forces with adequate allowances and pensions for dependants, and will use all the resources of the country for the welfare and the defence of the people.]

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. I can hold out no hope of a special opportunity being afforded for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that this is a most important question and that demands are coming from people all over the country for such a discussion? In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter on Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCHMEN (AID TO ALLIES).

Mr. Cary: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that all French military, naval and air force personnel who elect to continue the tight against Germany and Italy will be given honorary status with the British Forces of a rank similar to that held in the French Forces?

Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of encouraging and assisting to the utmost of their power all French forces who are able and willing to continue the struggle, and His Majesty's Government are devoting their urgent attention to this matter. I am not at the present moment prepared to say precisely in what way it will be decided to effect the co-operation at which we aim.

Mr. Cary: Does the offer of Anglo-French Union remain an open invitation to all Frenchmen who elect to fight on?

Viscountess Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have lost some splendid opportunities as far as the French Navy is concerned? I hope the Government will look into that matter. We have missed a whole fortnight when we might have done something.

Mr. Mander: In this connection, will sympathetic consideration be given to the question of pay and allowance for the persons concerned? Many of them have nothing.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last week or so—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES.

ACTIVE SERVICE (RECOGNITION).

Captain Markham: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the subject of a medal or other recognition for members of the Armed Forces who have served actively in France, Belgium or Norway during the last few months?

Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar Question put to me on 11th June by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith).

Captain Markham: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the Services at the fact that decorations have been given to very highly placed officers, but that no recognition has been given to any of the serving men in any of the Services for what they have gone through in the last few months?

Mr. Attlee: The Question related to the issue of a general service medal. That will be considered later.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is not the proper time to give a medal after the war is over?

RAILWAY TRAVEL.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport what arrangements exist to ensure that troops, when travelling by ordinary passenger trains, are provided with adequate seating accommodation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): When the railway companies have prior knowledge that bodies of troops are to travel by ordinary train they make arrangements to ensure that adequate seating accommodation is available for them. It is not always possible to provide seating accommodation when numbers of troops appear without notice.

Sir T. Moore: Irrespective of where the responsibility lies, is not my hon. Friend aware that it is the common and very disturbing experience of all night travellers from Scotland to see our troops standing all night without any possibility of being able to sit down during the journey?

Mr. Montague: I think the hon. and gallant Member is aware that attention is being specifically given to that very point, and we quite appreciate the importance of it?

Mr. Sorensen: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the railway companies to the answer given by the Secretary of State for War this afternoon particularly on this point?

Mr. Montague: There is another Question of a similar character down on the Paper for to-morrow, and unquestionably the Railway Executive will be informed of what has been said in this House upon the matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it be possible for the Government to release Lord Stamp from his present duties so that he can return to his own job?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX (BANKS).

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which item in the Bank of England Statutory Weekly Returns corresponds to the profit shown by the joint stock banks in their half-yearly balance-sheets, and at what date in the year will this item be taken into calculation to determine the assessment of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax which the Bank of England will now have to pay?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The figure for "Rest" in the statutory weekly return of the Bank of England corresponds with that for the balance of profit and loss in the balance-sheets of the joint stock banks, and includes undistributed taxed profits brought forward from previous years. In reply to the second part of the Question, the assessment to 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax falls to be made by reference to the Bank's accounting period, and will be made at the end of the current accounting year in accordance with the law.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes that the undisclosed profits of the Bank of England shall be included in the assessment for Excess Profits Tax; and whether the same policy will apply to all other banking institutions?

Sir K. Wood: The liability to Excess Profits Tax is required by law to be computed by reference to the actual profits of the concern assessed, irrespective of any reserve that may be made out of those profits, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that there is no distinction in this respect as between banks and other concerns.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the Chancellor aware that the Bank assesses itself for profit, and, as a regular habit, includes in its expenditure items which other limited companies are not allowed to include?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. All profits, including banking profits, are assessed for the purpose of the Excess Profits Tax by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can my right hon. Friend define what are banking profits?

INTEREST-FREE LOANS.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state in round figures the contribution to the finance of the war by firms and individuals who have decided to make loans to the Government free of interest during the process of the war and whether any special appeal is being made for the continuance of further investments on similar conditions?

Sir K. Wood: The total amount received in loans free of interest up to this morning is 6,766,080, apart from various offers which have been notified to me but not yet completed. The appeal which I made was for the duration of the war, and I trust that I shall continue to receive such loans from persons or companies in a position to make their contribution to the war effort in this way.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the magnificent response, does the Chancellor not think it about time that he took advantage of his own powers, and issued credit free of interest, as he now controls the banks?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Do any of the banks subscribe to the non-interest loans?

NATIONAL WAR BONDS.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the application by the Prudential Assurance Company for £20,000,000 of new National War Bonds, all assurance companies, friendly societies and similar bodies throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland are being encouraged to imitate this lead in the provision of finance for the prosecution of the war?

Sir K. Wood: I hope that all assurance companies, friendly societies and similar bodies will apply for the new National War Bonds to the greatest possible extent.

Sir P. Hannon: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that definite steps are being taken to induce all similar bodies to assist in financing the war in this way?

PURCHASE TAX (PUBLISHING TRADE).

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will exclude the book trade from the scope of the forthcoming Purchase Tax, in view of the absolute dependence of book exports on the volume of home trade and the vital importance of this industry, both at home and overseas, to the morale of English speaking peoples?

Sir K. Wood: I have given careful and sympathetic consideration to the matter, but I regret that I cannot exempt the publishing trade from making this contribution to the revenue needed for the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Lindsay: Without putting the matter out of perspective, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer, in view of the fact that this is, in a very real sense, a tax on knowledge?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will it not also ruin the booksellers?

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in March, 1919, the National Debt amounted to £7,435,000,000; that, since the war of 1914–18, £5,679,000,000 interest has been paid; and what steps he proposes to take to cancel the Debt, now amounting to £8,026,000,000?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, no such steps will be taken.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that he is going to hand over a similar burden to posterity on account of this war if he pursues the course that he is pursuing at present?

Sir K. Wood: I hardly think that the repudiation of the whole of our Debt would be an encouragement to people to assist in financing this war.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Chancellor aware that he has powers to issue credit free of interest, and to finance the war without paying interest?

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT FACILITIES (BANKS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will make the necessary arrangements for publishing in the aggregate at the end of each month, the amount outstanding by way of indebtedness from agricultural producers to the leading banks; and whether, at the same time, he will state the approximate number of agricultural borrowers to which this sum in the aggregate is related;
(2) whether he has any figures to show the approximate total amount in aggregate which was lent by Barclays, National Provincial, Midland, Westminster and Martin's banks, to agriculturalists at 31st December, 1939, or 1st January, 1940?

Sir K. Wood: In present circumstances, when the banks' staffs are seriously depleted and are working at high pressure, it is not possible to ask them to furnish at frequent intervals statistics of the kind desired by my hon. Friend. The available information shows, however, that advances to agriculturists by the clearing banks amounted in the aggregate to about £53,000,000 at the middle of February. No information is available as to the number of borrowers concerned.

Mr. De la Bère: Are the bankers charging 5 per cent. for these loans to agriculture, or are they charging some lesser amount?

Sir K. Wood: If my hon. Friend will put the Question down, I will try to answer it.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to assist me by getting the bankers to realise that some concession in this respect is overdue?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT BAKING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that night baking was prohibited in the last war; that much time is now being lost at night owing to air raids; that black-out conditions make ventilation difficult and heat unbearable at night; and whether he will prohibit night baking for the duration of the war?

Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend is wrong in thinking that night baking was prohibited in the last war. My right hon. Friend thinks, however, that the matter should be re-examined, and is taking steps to consult with the various interests concerned as to whether any modification is desirable for the war period.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (TRAINING).

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether steps are being taken to speed up the training of R.A.F. pilots and crews to keep pace with the increased output of aircraft; and whether it is proposed to take any special measures or to make any special appointments in this connection?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Yes, Sir. A number of steps have already been taken which will have the effect of speeding up very considerably the output of pilots and other flying personnel during the next few months. I have also decided that all the departments of the Air Ministry concerned with training should be placed under the direction of a new member of the Air Council to be called the Air Member for Training. He will be charged not only with responsibility for training policy and for the success of the training programme, but with ensuring that the training organisation is at all times adequate to meet the requirements of the Service and to keep pace with the increased flow of production that we can anticipate from this country and from the United States. The Air Member for Training will have a special responsibility for all matters


connected with the Empire Air Training Scheme. The officer selected for the appointment as Air Member for Training is Air Vice-Marshal A. G. R. Garrod.

Sir M. Sueter: I hope he will work at high speed.

Mr. John Rathbone: Will the Air Member for Training be told by the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps the best way to speed up their training is to release flying personnel and ground staff, mechanics and riggers from guard duty at night after having worked for 14 hours and more a day on their normal duties?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. That is one of the steps, as a matter of fact, to which I have referred as having already been taken, which we expect to have in advance of this appointment, and from which we expect to derive a beneficial effect on the flow of pilots.

Sir W. Brass: Has my right hon. Friend got substitutes for these guards at the aerodromes to take the place of those referred to by my hon. Friend?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. Airmen have been specially enlisted for guard duties.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these measures were not taken nine months ago?

Sir Irving Albery: Cap my right hon. Friend say whether satisfactory progress is being made with the scheme for the overseas training of pilots?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. Progress is being made with that scheme, and we attach the greatest importance to it. I specially mentioned it in my answer as being one of the specific responsibilities of the new Air Member.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the training of these pilots will be conducted with machines that are up to date, and not with old machines which are perfectly useless for their training?

Sir A. Sinclair: Most decidedly, Sir, that is one of the most important factors in an efficient training system.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that men are being called up before the Air Department is ready for them, that

they are taken long distances from their homes in Scotland to England and then are sent back until the Department is ready? Could we be assured that men will not be called up until the Department is ready?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir; it is essential to have a certain pool of people who can be drawn upon in the eventuality of the remainder of the training system operating so quickly that, if there was no pool, there would be no one to pass through in the ordinary sequence. That makes it necessary to have a certain pool of applicants before they enter their initial training. We are, however, making special arrangements so that those who do not wish to return to their homes and would like to take employment with the Royal Air Force should be allowed in future to go to aerodromes and be employed with the ground personnel and on defence and other matters.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that there have been men lying in the pool for months past while other men who have never been near the pool have passed straight through? Will he see that the pools are cleared out?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SITUATION.

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can say when the Prime Minister will make his next statement on the war situation?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the war situation as soon as possible. I am not in a position to indicate the likely date of the statement or whether my right hon. Friend will be in a position to give any information to the House this week.

Mr. Lees-Smith: While fully recognising the considerations which the Government have to take into account, will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that it is advisable to give the public all practicable information at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend is, I know, most anxious to give the House all possible information at the earliest possible time, but I am sure the House will realise that he must be the judge of when the time is proper to make a statement.

Captain Bellenger: Can the Lord Privy Seal indicate whether, when that Debate does take place, it will be in public or private session?

Sir A. Southby: Will the Debate take place in answer to a Question or on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Attlee: It is understood that the House will desire to have an opportunity for discussion of that statement. Whether it is to be public or private is a matter for decision at that time.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured that the Debate on the statement by the Prime Minister will not be delayed beyond next week? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is of the highest importance to the public and that hon. Members should be informed?

Mr. Attlee: I have already said that as soon as possible that statement will be made, but I cannot say whether it will be made this week or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir Charles Ernest Leonard Lyle, Baronet, for the Borough of Bournemouth.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock."—[Mr. Attlee.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940).

Estimate presented, of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1941 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to he printed. [No. 141.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1940.

CLASS II.

DOMINIONS OFFICE.

CHILDREN'S OVERSEAS RECEPTION SCHEME.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £38,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs." [Note:—£17,500 has been voted on account.]

Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. Am I right in assuming that it will be in Order on this Vote to discuss the scheme with reference to the United States of America as well as the Dominions, as we were informed the other day it would be?

The Chairman: I think that the matters to which the hon. Member has referred are intended to be dealt with by the Dominions Department, and under those circumstances it will, of course, be in Order.

3.58 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): I would like to start by thanking hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for not pressing me last Tuesday to give an account of my stewardship when my department was only five days old. The new staff was working under great pressure, and I explained that if we then had to go through a Debate there was a risk of the whole organisation breaking down. I, therefore, do thank hon. Members for their indulgence. Let me remind Members of the origin of the Children's Overseas Reception Board, or, as we propose to call it, C.O.R.B., which is charged with the duty of the Children's Overseas Reception Scheme, shortly to be called C.O.R.S. An Inter-Departmental Committee was appointed early in June

to recommend a practical scheme for sending children overseas. The Committee will remember that a number of offers were received from the Dominions to welcome our children. It is very moving and inspiring to reflect that families who are within the safe sanctuary of the Dominions overseas, within the British Commonwealth of Nations, consider that their fortunes are so linked to ours that they are eager to welcome our children, to receive them into the family circle, to care for them and to maintain them at their own expense for the duration of the war. I should like to express, on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the whole Empire, our deepest gratitude for the generosity of these offers and for the spirit which has prompted them.
The Inter-Departmental Committee, which met for the first time on 7th June, made its final report late on the night of Saturday, 15th June. On Monday, 17th June, the War Cabinet approved of the recommendations in the committee's report and I was appointed chairman of the new executive body. On the same day, that is, on the Monday, I gave the High Commissioners for the Dominions, copies of our report for their consideration as the basis of a practical scheme. On the same day, sanction was received to open negotiations with Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons, the well-known travel agency, with a view to the new department being housed in their premises. My first task, naturally, was to engage a staff. I was fortunate indeed in securing the services of the head of the Department of Overseas Trade, whose gift for organisation and whose drive, had impressed me when I was a Minister at that Department. He therefore became Director-General. Meanwhile it had been arranged that the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee should be published on the following Thursday, 20th June, and we announced our intention of moving into our new premises on that day.
During the final sittings of the committee a circular was drafted at the Board of Education ready to be sent out when the Government approved of the scheme. These circulars intimated to all local education authorities that the report would be published on the following Thursday and asked for their co-operation in establishing forthwith, machinery


to deal with the large number of applications which might be expected. It was arranged on Wednesday, 19th June, the day before we moved into our new premises, to meet a number of voluntary societies with knowledge of migration and child welfare. This meeting took place, and I asked them to nominate one representative each, to report next day at our new premises and to be the nucleus of an Advisory Council. Lord Snell had consented to be chairman of that body. On Wednesday night we had a dress rehearsal with the small nucleus staff which had been collected in two days. This was in order to make sure that the various tasks were properly allocated and that every one understood his task. The hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) and Mrs. Clifford Norton offered to assist the Board and their services were gladly accepted and they have already proved themselves a valuable aid. On 20th June, the staff was at work tackling our task. Within three days, in a broadcast, the Committee will remember, I was able to announce that all the Dominions had accepted the scheme outlined in the report and would co-operate with us in making it a practical success. So it was that the Children's Overseas Reception Board came into being.
It will be convenient if I explain at this stage, as briefly and as simply as I can, the main elements of the scheme which we are charged to administer. In the case of all children who have reached the age of five but have not reached the age of 16, parents can make application for their children to be sent overseas, to the Dominion of their choice. The benefits of the scheme are open to school children within those ages, wherever the children are now situated, or whatever the circumstances of the parents. For easier administration, we have divided all children into two categories, namely, those who attend State grant-aided schools such as elementary and secondary schools, and those who attend other schools. No mother is eligible to accompany her child overseas, but an exception may be made in the case of the widow of a man who has lost his life in active service in the present war. If parents are excluded, it is clearly necessary to organise a system of escorts or helpers, to look after the children on the journey. No charge will be made for the railway journeys or

voyages, to the parents of children from grant-aided schools but they will be asked to contribute, week by week, the same amount as they are now contributing, or as they would contribute under the United Kingdom evacuation scheme.

Colonel Wedgwood: Who will get that money?

Mr. Shakespeare: That comes to my Department. The parents of children at other schools are to be asked to contribute at a higher weekly rate.

Mr. Cove: Are those "other schools," private schools?

Mr. Shakespeare: "Other schools" are any schools which are not grant-aided schools. This sum has since been fixed at £1 a week and the amount of the fare may be adjusted to the circumstances of the parent.
The Committee will, I take it, wish to know four things. First, what is the composition of the executive body; secondly, what is the machinery for the selection of the children for evacuation; thirdly, what arrangements will be made at the other end to receive them, and, fourthly, what is the composition of the Children's Overseas Reception Board?

Mr. Lipson: Is no provision being made for children under five?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is not in the scheme which has been agreed between the Dominions and ourselves. I have, personally, chosen to keep the size of the Board as small as possible. I have secured the services of very experienced civil servants who will bring to this problem the specialised knowledge of their various Departments, such as the Departments of Education and Health; the Dominions Office and the Foreign Office. In addition, I have appointed from outside the Civil Service two officers. One is a woman who will be charged with welfare problems. The other is a business man from the largest travel organisation in this country, who has spent all his life dealing with problems of transport. With the Director-General, his deputy and myself as chairman, the Board is thus limited to 10 members. We shall be assisted by an adequate subordinate staff, but I have purposely avoided building up a hierarchy. The Board will, of course,


have a secretary, and we shall have two advisers. I have appointed Mr. George Gibson, so well-known in the trade union world for his knowledge of migration, to advise me on all labour questions associated with migration, and I have appointed Mr. Tom Henderson, who is equally well-known in Scotland, to act as liaison officer between our Board and the Scottish branch.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will all these people be unpaid?

Mr. Shakespeare: The civil servants are paid, and the Council is unpaid.

Mr. Silkin: Will the hon. Gentleman consider appointing to the committee, representatives of local education authorities who have had considerable experience in dealing with evacuation?

Mr. Shakespeare: Much as I would like their services, my difficulty there is that if we started to make appointments on that basis, there would be no limit to the size of the Board. I can, however, always get their advice. I think I have secured a first-class Board and one which will deal quickly with the many novel problems associated with our scheme. We meet normally in the morning, and again late at night to try to solve difficulties which have arisen in the course of the day. If those difficulties cannot be settled there and then, we establish immediate contact with the Government Departments concerned, and here, I should like to thank other Departments for the speed with which they have given decision. Particularly, does this apply to the Treasury.
After consulting my Director-General, I laid down two guiding principles to govern the conduct of the Board. In the first place, no minutes or files must pass between directors for the time being. Every question must be solved by personal contact. In the second place, as speed is the essence of dealing with our problem, if a director has to make an urgent decision in connection with a particular matter with which he is associated, and a mistake is made in circumstances that he could not envisage owing to the necessity for quick decisions, he shall not be held responsible, but the responsibility shall rest upon me. This, then, is the new Government Department which we are trying to run on business

lines to cope with a scheme of unusual complexity. If larger questions of policy arise, it will be my lot to take them up with the appropriate Ministers or to submit them to a higher authority. I would like to express my gratitude to the staff. During the last 12 days they have worked very long hours and no distinction has been made between Saturday and Sunday. They have responded enthusiastically to every demand made upon them.
I have now given the Committee the lay-out of the Board which is the executive body and takes all decisions. I am advised, as I have said, by an Advisory Council under the chairmanship of Lord Snell, composed of persons of proved experience nominated by voluntary societies in touch with these problems. Apart from my Government colleagues and the Scottish branch, which meets at Edinburgh, there are 25 members of the Advisory Council for England and Wales. This Advisory Council is adequate in size and no more than adequate to deal with the many questions which arise in regard to evacuation in this country, the welfare of the children and the problems peculiar to each of the four Dominions. Let me emphasise, however, that it is only an advisory body and that the ultimate responsibility for decision rests with the Board. I have referred to this Advisory Council many questions, such as what should be the quota from grant-aided schools and from non-grant-aided schools; what are the best arrangements which can be made for the welfare of the children during the voyage, and what scale should be fixed for payments by parents of children from non-grant-aided schools. I have asked them, also, to lay down the appropriate scales for doctors, nurses, teachers and helpers, and to advise me on the important question of the priority of selection. This Council has been in almost constant session, and I am doubly blessed in having the advice of this very competent body.
So much for the Board and the Advisory Council. I come now to the machinery for the selection and evacuation of children overseas. With regard to the machinery for selection, the local education authorities have been notified by circular, first, that they must choose only children who are suitable, and, secondly, that they must utilise the


machinery of the school medical service so that a very careful report can be made in respect of each child before the final report of my Committee is drawn up. I have asked the High Commissioners for the Dominions to agree to appoint a doctor to confer with Sir Arthur MacNalty, the Chief Medical Adviser to the Board of Education. They met and agreed upon a reasonable standard for a medical test.

Mr. Lunn: May we be told what it is?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is confidential. I should like to thank the High Commissioners and their staffs for the help they have given in this respect. Hon. Members will be gratified to learn that the medical test in this country is final and conclusive. Children will not be rejected at the end of the voyage by any medical examination that may be considered necessary there. It is not our intention to send any difficult or problem children to the Dominions. They have asked for a cross-section of British children, normal, fit and healthy, and we shall send selected children according to this plan.

Mr. McGovern: With regard to the medical examination, will it be in the area from which the children come or by the Board? Is there a question of any children being turned back at the port?

Mr. Shakespeare: There will be a medical examination by the school medical service, and then there will be a check by a doctor appointed by each High Commissioner in respect of each Dominion.

Mr. McGovern: Will that be done locally?

Mr. Shakespeare: It will be done centrally. As regards the quota, we have decided on a fair quota in respect of the two kinds of schools. In England and Wales, 75 per cent. of the children will come from grant-aided schools, and 25 per cent. from other schools. In Scotland, 49 out of 50 children will come from what are termed local education authority schools, and one out of 50 children from other schools. These quotas follow roughly the proportions of children existing to-day in the respective kinds of schools. It may well be that if we cannot

satisfy the quota in respect of either category, we shall be forced to select children on some other basis. Hon. Members will see that there is no ground for the constant reiteration by Lord Haw-Haw that the benefits of the scheme are exclusively for the rich. The next important principle we have decided upon relates to the priority of selection. After taking the advice of the appropriate authorities, we have chosen vulnerable zones the children living in which will rank for first priority. In the course of time the date of the application made by parents will be a factor that may influence our decisions on priority. The Committee will be interested to learn that up to date we have received applications from local education authorities in England and Wales in respect of just over 40,000 children now attending grant-aided schools, and applications in respect of about 12,000 children which have come direct to us at our head-quarters from the parents of children at other schools.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Does the second figure include those children who are going to Canada, and possibly elsewhere, under private arrangements?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir. They are children who are going under our scheme.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Are we to understand, in respect of children going to the United States of America, that every child now comes under the scheme, or at any rate has to be notified under the scheme?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am not talking about the United States of America.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it the case that a notification has to be made in respect of every child who goes?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is not compulsory. Every child does not come under our scheme.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to America as well as the Dominions?

Mr. Shakespeare: There is no scheme operating in respect of America. I am talking about the scheme which has been agreed upon between the Dominions and ourselves and I am dealing with the num-


ber of children in respect of whom application has been made to us, whether from grant-aided schools or other schools.

Mr. Lunn: Has the hon. Gentleman given us the total figure?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is the total. We have had continuously working at our office representatives from the offices of the High Commissioners for the Dominions, and they have carefully checked medical reports. I come now to the machinery for evacuation. By to-morrow, Wednesday, some of the parents will have been notified that their child has been provisionally selected, and they will be asked to give their consent by signing a document of acceptance. It will be made clear that parents send their children at their own risk, and naturally, they will balance the risk of the voyage against the risk of staying in this country. In the same letter, parents will be notified of the necessary clothing which the children should take. When the letter of consent is returned to us, and steps have been taken to ensure that it has been signed by both parents, or if only by one, at least the consent of the other parent has been obtained, we shall be in a position to notify the local education authority where the children live and to make arrangements for their evacuation. The local education authority will also be given a list of the necessary clothing to be taken by the children in their area. They will be told also of the collecting stations and asked to co-operate in order to ensure the safe arrival of the children in good time at these collecting stations on an appointed date.
We are also securing the services of teachers from the schools in these areas who will travel with the children to the port of embarkation, and further, we are securing the services, both centrally and locally, of those who belong to the Women's Voluntary Services Organisation. I should like to thank the Dowager Lady Reading for the continuous help which that organisation has given us. The children will be detrained in the vicinity of the port of embarkation, and will sleep for at least one night in hostels there provided. We have already provided suitable hostel accommodation near enough to the ports of embarkation but far enough away to ensure the children's

safety. The escorts and helpers who will take the children on the voyage will join the children at these hostels. Hon. Members will be interested to know that we are working to a scale of one helper to 15 children, in addition to nurses and doctors. It will be possible at this stage to arrange at the hostels that those children who have not been properly equipped for the voyage shall be so equipped. I have received a cheque for £500 from a Canadian lady who has returned to Canada to be used at my absolute discretion for the welfare of all children going overseas. Therefore, I have asked the Dowager Lady Reading to spend this sum in purchasing clothing, games, toys, books and knitting gear for the voyage, and this equipment will be stored at the hostels, and the final check will be made to see that the children are properly clothed. During the time the children are at the hostels, doctors appointed by the High Commissioners for the Dominions will have an opportunity of making a final medical check, and when these preliminaries are completed, the children will be embarked. We are making arrangements for them to embark rapidly; the usual formalities have been dispensed with, and there will be no passports. In the meantime, each child will have been given a luggage label with its C.O.R.B. number and as each child embarks it will be given an identity disc with its C.O.R.B. number. There will be an expert staff to check the final list of the children that embark on any ship; one copy of the document will go to the Dominion, another copy will come back to us at headquarters, and the third copy will go to another place of safe keeping in this country, in case our records should be destroyed. We shall know actually and absolutely the number of children that embark on any one ship.
As to the voyage, the Admiralty, the Ministry of Shipping and my Department have been conferring as to the best means of providing protection, and I will say no more about that. During the voyage, the escort leaders and helpers will get in touch with the children and talk to them about conditions in the Dominions to which they are going. There will be doctors, nurses, and a chaplain on each ship. I should like to emphasise that children, from whatever school they come, will proceed in the same ship without any distinction. It will be, as it were, a


boys' club or a girls' holiday camp proceeding overseas under the proper supervision of experienced persons who have done this work all their lives.
Let us now imagine that a ship has reached the safe haven of a friendly Dominion. There the children will be received and will remain in hostels or other accommodation serving purely as clearing stations. They will be received by representatives of the same organisations as are now on my Advisory Council. The reason I asked well known voluntary bodies to nominate representatives to my Advisory Council was that I knew that all these bodies had organisations at the other end in the Dominions, so that the supervision and care of the children may be continued under the same auspices here and overseas. During the few days the children spend in the hostels in the Dominions, the lists will be checked by those in charge of the reception machinery, and then the children will be despatched, conducted by suitable escorts, to their appointed homes. Those who have been earmarked at this end for a nominated home of a relative or friend will so proceed. Some children will find that the nominated homes have been designated at the other end. A process of nomination by parents can be made here, or at the other end, so that it will be possible to consider the wishes of parents on a variety of points. School friends may go to the same town, and if parents desire that Roman Catholic children should be received into Roman Catholic families, that can also be arranged. If there is a preference in the case of any other denomination, attempts will be made to satisfy the wishes of parents.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will it be possible, within the ambit of this scheme, for Welsh communities in Canada to receive Welsh children?

Mr. Shakespeare: Certainly. I imagine that there will be a good deal of nomination of that kind. The same will also apply in the case of Scotland. The children will proceed and will be absorbed into the family circles anxious to receive them. They will be given the education available in the district free of charge, and if they pass the school-leaving age, special arrangements will be made to find them employment. I am appointing liaison officers, and attaching them to the staff of each High Commissioner in every

Dominion, to advise the Dominions on problems like these. A liaison officer will send continuous reports on the welfare of the children in general, and notify us of the homes where the children are placed, so that parents can get into touch with them by letter.
The Committee will have noticed that a strong committee for the care of refugee children from Europe has been set up in the United States under the presidency of Mrs. Roosevelt. To that committee will come the offers from generous American homes for the reception of our children. I am in touch with the American Ambassador on the application of our scheme to America, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement. I have already devised adequate machinery within my organisation to deal with applications from parents who wish to accept the offers of American hospitality. Thus, in a short time, we have devised machinery which, I hope, will cope with our problems. As the Committee knows, our immediate problem is to find places for the 20,000 children in respect of whom offers for maintenance and care have been received from the four Dominions. Members will naturally desire to know at what pace this process will proceed. Obviously, there are two limiting factors. Firstly, there are the shipping facilities available, and, secondly, the absorptive capacity of each receiving country. I have pointed out that we have now received offers from the Dominions to receive and find homes for 20,000 of our children. We shall proceed with the work of selection from those who have applied, and send that number overseas as quickly as possible, subject to the shipping accommodation available. But, even when the American scheme operates, Members, I know, will appreciate that the offers of homes for children in the Dominions, or the United States, will apply, and must apply, only to a very small proportion of our child population. It is necessary that this should be realised, so that the country can view our scheme in its proper perspective.
To take advantage of these generous offers, we can proceed on one of two methods. Firstly, we could try to evacuate children from this country at the same speed as that at which the British Expeditionary Force was evacuated from


Dunkirk. This is not our policy. There is no comparison between the conditions in our island fortress and those which confronted the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk. The B.E.F. were confronted on all sides by overwhelming forces of the enemy. They were short of food, water and ammunition, and they were continuously bombed, confined as they were on the narrow beaches. They had no other alternative but to escape at all costs by sea in any kind of shipping or meet with destruction or capitulation. I am sure hon. Members will agree that these are not the conditions under which our children should go. It is true that we are a fortress, but it is a fortress under our own direction. We have unchallenged naval superiority, an incomparable Air Force, likely to be still more effective because it will operate from home bases in defence of its native shore, and at this moment as strong an Army as we have ever had in our country, stronger because of the veterans who have been evacuated from Dunkirk. Behind our own Forces we have all the machinery of Local Defence Volunteers, and of Civil Defence. Moreover, we have made provision for the civil population against air attack, and we have provided for the evacuation of children from dangerous areas to places of greater safety. I have spent some time stressing these points to show the essential difference between what I might call the "Dunkirk method" of evacuation, and the method that we intend to pursue.
The Committee will have noted comments from certain quarters that we should proceed at the speed of Dunkirk. My view is that if in our eagerness to proceed as quickly as possible in this task, we dispense with all provision for the welfare and safety of our children, sending them overseas without selection or medical tests, rushing them to the ports and herding them like cattle into any ship we may find, we shall be guilty of a gross breach of trust. So long as my Board and I are administering this scheme, we shall not countenance anything of that kind.

Mr. Cocks: No one has ever suggested that you should.

Mr. Shakespeare: I have seen the suggestion made, not in this House, but

outside. I shall regard myself in lōco parentis—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lōco!"] Those who have studied Latin at school will know that the "o" is short. Anyhow, whether it is lōco or lōco, I shall regard myself as such in respect of these children. I want to conclude my observations on the pace of our operations by repeating that our method is to proceed as quickly as human ingenuity can devise, but not to dispense with precautions which are considered necessary for the safety and welfare of our children.
It will be realised that, independently of our scheme, a mother or an adult, who has a child, can obtain permission to go overseas, if they go as fare-payers, and make their own shipping arrangements. The Canadian Government, however, have pressed us very strongly that permission should be given to certain schools, which have made arrangements with schools in Canada, whereby the children of the school here can continue their education overseas. There are not many schools of this nature in Canada, but some of them have close links with similar schools here. It will be possible in such cases to arrange for parents, here, to pay into a trust fund the equivalent of the schools fees to a Canadian school, and such sums will be blocked for the duration. It will be for the Canadian authorities, of course, to maintain and educate these children with this potential cover, and to make all financial arrangements in respect of the children they have absorbed in their schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are these particular schools?"] They are a limited number of private schools. Clearly, these schools which make these arrangements cannot come under our scheme, because the essence of our scheme is that there should be no discrimination, and no special facilities for a privileged few. For these reasons we are opposed to the evacuation of public or private schools within the framework of our scheme. Apart from this limited concession, which was pressed very strongly by the Canadian Government, who are acting as our hosts for all the children under our scheme—

Mr. Lindsay: Does this scheme come under the 25,000?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is outside the scheme altogether. The Canadian Government, as I have said, have strongly


pressed for this concession, and this will enable schools to continue their education with a particular school in Canada which has an historic link.

Mr. Mander: How many children are involved?

Mr. Shakespeare: We do not know. Apart from this limited Concession, I wish to emphasise the attitude of the Government on the whole question of evacuation. It will be remembered that the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee never contemplated the application of this policy of evacuation oversea to whole schools of any character. The Government accepted its report, and the maintenance of that principle was endorsed by the Government as vital, if we are to have a balanced migration, representing a cross-section of British children. I have seen it suggested in some quarters that it would be a good policy if some of our public schools, whose names are rich in tradition, tore up their roots here and settled down overseas. That has been urged even in respect of schools situated, as the majority are, in the less vulnerable areas of this country. The Government are fundamentally opposed to such a policy. Even if such a method was desirable, which it is not, there can never be, in time of war, the available shipping capacity. Nothing would so undermine public morale as to grant such facilities to a privileged few. Such a policy would militate against the spirit of resolution and tenacity with which we intend to prosecute this war to a final conclusion.
I hope to secure all the necessary shipping facilities for all the children under our scheme, and, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Shipping and his Department, I am so doing, to enable me to solve my problem within a reasonable period of time. Members will appreciate that shipping facilities are restricted in war time and are governed by military considerations, and these must come first. If, however, I find that the children who are outside my scheme, whether they go as individuals with their mothers or under the arrangements that I have outlined, impinge on the space that I require for the children under my scheme, I shall not fail to intervene. I must have, and the Dominion Governments are anxious that I should have, the shipping capacity necessary to carry

overseas the children under the balanced migration policy which they have so generously accepted.
There is one other justification for the scheme which is in no way associated with the war. It may perhaps be one of the blessings which will flow from the war. It is still true in our national economy that exports should balance imports. We are importing into this country the fighting men of the Dominions, and we are exporting back to the Dominions the best of our children, and for this double blessing the Mother Country will be for ever in the debt of the daughter Dominions. This plan for evacuating children overseas is really an invisible export, because who can tell what will be the far-reaching consequences of it and what the value of it will be? It may well be that it contains within its breast the germ of a wise emigration policy for the better distribution of the population within the territories of the British Empire. That is what so many of us have been urging for so long and have prayed for. The dream is in sight of realisation. These children will form friendships, contacts and associations in the Dominions, and the silken cord which binds the Empire together will be strengthened beyond all power to sever. When the war is over, these children will come back inspired with fresh visions. It may well be that some of them will return to the Dominions, and in other cases their parents will visit them there. Is it too much to hope, as part of our Commonwealth policy in time of peace, that there will be this constant flow of older children proceeding overseas with their faces turned towards these broader horizons and guided by the faith and courage of those pioneers of British stock who won these lands for British civilisation?

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I think the Committee will agree in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on having given us a very explicit and detailed statement of the scheme that he has in hand, although he did somewhat confuse it, I think, by apparently preparing in advance some excuses for not proceeding at a rapid rate and, further, by putting up dummies of arguments which have not been raised and proceeding to knock them down. However, the Department is to be congratulated to a certain extent on the unexampled speed with which it has


proceeded so far. On the 19th ultimo the Lord Privy Seal announced that the Inter-Departmental Committee's report was in the Vote Office and that it would be more or less adopted by the Government, and on the 26th the House was somewhat startled by the tremendously lengthy list that the hon. Gentleman read out of those who were to be on the Advisory Council. One was certainly tempted to say that, if in a number of counsellors there is wisdom, in a crowd like that there is certain to be confusion. When he went on to say that representatives of all these associations would be gathered on the other side to welcome the children, one can imagine the kind of crowd that will be there and the sorting out that there will have to be. This Advisory Council is certainly open to some amount of criticism in respect of its personnel, and there is one organisation which has at its head a very prominent Fascist, and we do not know how far other persons within the same ambit may have been included. [Interruption.] Miss Mary Allen's association is certainly included.

Mr. Shakespeace: What association?

Mr. Ammon: The Women's Voluntary Service Association.

Mr. Shakespeare: To make a statement like that is really not fair to the Advisory Council nor is it fair to the work done by the Women's Voluntary Service Association. I asked them to nominate a representative, and they have nominated a very good one.

Mr. Ammon: That does not dispose of the point that I made, which has been raised again and again in the House. It has some association, whether direct or indirect does not matter, with the Advisory Council to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I want to ask how far the plan has been worked out as regards fitting-in with the reception on the other side. The actual planning of the evacuation sounded very good, added to which we have the advantage of the experience we have already had of the evacuation of children with the assistance of various education committees. But the Committee would be interested to know what definite arrangements have actually been made on the other side. It is one thing

to say we have a certain number of invitations and a certain number of people are willing to receive them in their homes. But we should like to know whether it is properly organised and whether arrangements are being made and care will be taken that the children are watched and followed up, so that there may be no doubt that when they get to the other side many of them may not be stranded and there may not be a hasty rush round to place children here, there and everywhere without any due regard to circumstances. I am not saying this by way of hostile criticism, but they are some of the points which have to be observed, and, as far as I know, they have not yet been mentioned.
I am a little doubtful even now about the dividing of the two categories of children. Is there going to be any differentiation made on the other side in regard to social strata, the sort of homes that they come from—those who have come entirely from State-aided schools as against the others? The Minister himself confused us a little as to what exactly he meant by the 25 per cent. He told us that 75 per cent. of an ungiven number were to be chosen from the State-aided schools and 25 per cent. from other schools. He went on to suggest that certain schools, public schools "and others," will be outside that scheme. How far do the "others" extend, and what exactly is covered by the 25 per cent.? The number of 52,000 does not represent the whole. It represents those who go through the scheme, but there is a number of others, as he admitted, who will go through various other agencies, children of whom he can have no cognisance and who cannot be included. There are one or two other categories for which local authorities act in loco parentis, such as orphans, children who have been deserted, children who have been neglected and taken away from their parents, and some of these have been sent to approved schools. Are all these children outside the ambit of possible evacuation? I hope it will not be thought that these are all children of criminal tendencies. It often happens that a child found homeless and taken from the streets and sent to an approved school—

Viscountess Astor: Is it not of vital importance that we


should be very careful in selecting really our best children? Once the Colonies got hold of the idea that we are sending that kind of children, it would wreck the whole thing.

Mr. Ammon: That is the sort of thing I feared would creep in. The children that I have referred to are not of necessity any worse than others. Proper safeguards, no doubt, will be taken on both sides as to the selection of them. Deserted and orphan children may be as good as any others. It does not follow that they are going to be bad or are unfit to go into homes. With proper selection, and given proper care, they may prove to be the best emigrants, and they may settle there because they have no natural ties on this side. In addition to that, the hon. Gentleman has told us that some arrangements have been made with the Ministry of Shipping and, I presume, with the Admiralty. He explained, I thought at a good deal of length, that this could not be treated on precisely the same ground as the evacuation from the beaches of Dunkirk, but, with an enemy such as we are engaged with, you cannot even rule that out, for nothing would be more tempting to a Nazi than the possibility of blowing up a shipload of children. It is necessary that there shall be no long delay and that steps shall be taken before the bad weather comes and before the real offensive against this country comes. The United States might not be above helping in this connection with its own fleet and endeavouring at least to give protection to ships carrying children across the Atlantic.
The Under-Secretary has touched on medical supervision. There are all sorts of cranky people with views about that, and I have seen a letter from someone who wants to know what is to happen to those who have conscientious objections to vaccination if that is insisted on. People with such views are a considerable element in the country, as every justice of the peace knows, and some consideration may have to be given to them. There are some things that will have to be made plain to the parents. They will have to understand clearly that the children go away for the duration, and as parents have largely messed up evacuation here, there should be no suggestion of their applying for their children to go backwards and forwards. They must under-

stand that the children are 3,000 miles away and that it is no good worrying and harassing officials on this side for the return of children until such time as is thought proper. They must be told, too, that there can be no suggestion of sending out parents. Anybody who has been in touch with evacuation at home will tell you that nothing has demoralised the whole scheme more than the fact of parents visiting the children. It will be as well to make it clear that if parents want to go, they and their children must do so at their own cost apart from this scheme.
We wish the scheme well, but there are certain things one would like to know, especially with regard to contacts on the other side. It may be, as the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech, that as a result of this tragedy we may be knit much closer to our overseas Dominions and realise, what I think has been slipping away from us to a large extent, our responsibility to our overseas Commonwealth. A German publicist, writing in America, said that one of the things which makes us unfit to continue is that we have lost all interest in the overseas part of the Commonwealth and that we have grown so soft and used to luxury that we were no longer the people we once were. In that matter I think there may be some grounds of criticism. A good deal of slackness, inertia and indifference have grown up in the country, and that is, to a large extent, the reason why we find it rather difficult to get people to realise the grim facts with which they are faced in the present situation. This scheme may be one of the things that will bring us closer to them. In this scheme I hope there will not be any extension of differentiation on class lines. I do not know what is to be done with regard to people who pay extra sums of money, but that should be a private matter as between the Board and the persons concerned. Nothing should be known which will indicate any caste or financial difference between the children who go out, and this difference should not determine the sort of homes in which the children are received.
The House should be informed as soon as possible about how and when it is proposed to send over the first party of children, and we should be assured that they will go over on a fully worked-out scheme as to contacts and the homes to


which they are to go. I have a little fear from what has been put before us that, while there is an admirably planned scheme on this side, nothing definite has been worked out with regard to reception which, of course, is vital in a scheme like this. I hope that the scheme will not be marred by the neglect of that side of it. I hope, too, that this is not after all a window-dressing scheme but that there is an intention that it should be a really effective and far-reaching scheme. The Under-Secretary himself roused such a suspicion, but I hope there will be no grounds for it and that before long he will be able to give fuller information of the arrangements made on the other side.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I wish, first, to cover a few points about which, I think, most hon. Members feel in common, and then to raise some criticisms of the scheme and of the Minister's speech. We are on common ground when we express publicly our gratitude to the Dominions. Theirs is a generous gesture, spontaneous and magnanimous. We are equally grateful for the offers which are coming from the United States of America. We were impressed with the speed with which the hon. Gentleman got to work. That does not necessarily mean that we approve of each step which has been taken. I would like to congratulate him on his attempt to get rid of red tape and to cut through the normal obstructions which one often meets in Government Departments and which are really designed for peace-time policies. I find it difficult to understand what the Government really mean. This doubt has been expressed by various people in the Committee and outside. Mr. Spencer Leeson expressed his views in the "Times" the other day about the migration of older children, and suggested that some of those between 14 and i6 might well remain in this country. I thought the Minister's Dunkirk analogy a little unfortunate, but if this is an island fortress and if we are intent on getting the children out of the country as fast as possible, obviously under proper arrangements, I am not convinced from the questionings which the Minister himself has introduced that we are going as fast as possible. This is no reflection on the work put in by his Department and those

gallant men and women whom the hon. Gentleman has gathered round him. I am not convinced that we have exhausted the shipping space. I speak without any authority when I ask whether we are certain that this is the limit of shipping space. Are there not a number of ships constantly returning from this country to the West Indies and elsewhere which might be used? Who suggested the limit? Did the Ministry of Shipping fix it?
I am not clear, as I have never been clear with regard to the whole of our evacuation policy, what our policy in the present scheme is. I say this speaking as one who had to bear responsibility for the effects of evacuation at home in the reception areas on the educational side. I was never clear in my own mind—and I said this from that side of the House—that the artificial division of the country into evacuation, neutral and reception areas had much meaning. At this moment it is proving to have less meaning than ever. It was never properly thought out. I do not think that the policy in regard to evacuating children overseas has really been properly thought out. It is important that it should be from the point of view both of the parents and of the Dominions and from the point of view of real safety. In any given year about 700,000 persons cross the Atlantic, backwards and forwards. Many of these travel on luxury liners and on ships which carry a much smaller number of persons. We were not told to-day what numbers were to be sent per ship and I am not clear that we cannot send a larger number than those at present being taken. What does the £15 represent? I am told there is a cheap rate of £15, but does it represent a return ticket?
There are those who say that this scheme is defeatism, and there are hon. Members who do not like it. I do not know how many they represent. I have heard Members say, "I would not like to go down to my constituency and address meetings when my children are safe on the other side." I have heard others say that they have put the facts to their children and that they have decided against evacuation abroad. It should be borne in mind that the decision to send children is a personal decision in every case. I have tried to weigh the matter, for many friends have written in the last week, because I once had some


connection with this problem, asking what they should do. I have frankly had to say that it is a personal question. I would ask, however, whether, if it is part of national policy, it is still a personal question. That is the way evacuation has been conducted from the beginning. There was never any compulsion on children to go. We were presented with the arguments against compulsion by the Minister of Health a week or two ago, but they did not convince some of us. Those who protested in many cases had themselves sent their children away. In this case, however, it seems to me that it must be a personal decision.
With regard to the machinery, as far as I know there is only one person on the Board with any experience of the Dominions. I do not say that there must not be representatives with knowledge of education in this country, but that fact makes me as doubtful as my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) about the reception side of the scheme. While there are on the Board representatives of every voluntary organisation which has ever had anything to do with migration, I would point out that these children are not being sent by those bodies. It is true that in the case of churches, and especially of one church, they have looked after their children well. The Y.M.C.A. are not sending children out, but by far the most successful scheme in Canada was that of the Y.M.C.A. because they had people looking after the children and people on this side with whom there was a constant interchange, and there were reports every month about the children.
If that is so, it is no good my hon. Friends saying, "We therefore see that all these problems are represented on the other side." Incidentally, while I am on this point, I would ask why he has the Countess of Bessborough, Chairman of the Council of the Oversea Settlement of British Women, Miss Gladys Pott, ex-chairman of the Executive of the Society for Oversea Settlement of British Women, and Miss Edith Thompson, C.B.E., Chairman of the executive of the same society on the Council. It does seem to me to be an attempt to get in every known person. It was my business for two years to rationalise all the voluntary societies and bring them down to about one-sixth,

so that we could get some proper proportion, and I am glad to see that such persons as Colonel Culshaw, of the Salvation Army, and Mr. Gordon Green, who has a real practical knowledge of this subject, are included on the Advisory Council. I do not wish to say any more than that. I do not share the criticism that there is too large a number. I think we have to carry the main voluntary societies, and that if we carry representation of one denomination, as regards the churches, we must carry representation of the others. Therefore, I only hope that the arrangements on the other side will be equally well made.
With regard to the machinery for selection, the hon. Gentleman told us that only children who are suitable will go. Does that mean there is to be a certificate from the headmaster of each school, that there is to be something more than a medical report? If we send difficult or problem children, a whole host of questions will be raised. We have had to get rid of the idea in the Dominions that the Dominions are places to which to send children who are under the care of the Poor Law or from orphanages. That idea is very much resented in Canada. It is not the case that the children from orphanages or the Poor Law schools are any worse than others, but there was that conception not very long ago, in the days of "Darkest England," and there are societies existing for the purpose of getting out to the Dominions the children we least want here. I hope that idea is completely outside this scheme: indeed I am sure it is.
When we come to the percentages I still am not clear about the position. Of those who are going from England 75 per cent. will be from the grant-aided schools and 25 per cent. will cover all the rest, the public or private schools, as they are called. In Scotland, I gather that 49 out of every 50 children will come from the State schools. A point was raised at the end of the hon. Gentleman's speech about the marrying-up of the different schools. I was not clear how that was going to work. He said there were historic links. I do not think there are, except in one or two cases. There are in Canada, New Zealand and Australia about 50 schools in all of the type which we call public, and it is a perfectly good part of the migration scheme that there


should be a link between such schools. When my hon. Friend says that it is preposterous that those schools should go out as a whole, I say, "Of course it is," because a large number of the children are over 16; and as I do not agree with sending out children over 14, I should much prefer that there should be a marrying-up of the preparatory schools in this country and similar schools in the Dominions. If we are to do that, there must be somebody, on the Board or in Canada who has some knowledge of that question, and I am not sure who has. At the present moment there is nobody unfortunately—not even the Headmasters Conference—who has a really comprehensive knowledge of those schools in either Canada, Australia or New Zealand.
Many parents have been very anxious to know where their children are going. There are about 5,000,000 school children in this country, and I should say, offhand, that about 50,000 attend the public schools, although I know there is also a lot attending private schools. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who is sitting opposite, was one of those who looked into this question, and it was then decided, I think, that there were perhaps 300,000 or 400,000 attending private schools, but we are thinking of the better known schools, I presume. Therefore, 25 per cent. is a pretty high proportion of the total. We are dealing mainly, I take it, with children attending the State schools in England and Scotland who will go to State schools in the Dominions. I cannot help feeling that it would be to the public interest if a sufficient number of children went from a particular school or from the schools of a particular area to find a link with some similar area in the Dominions. This is an old idea. It was put forward in relation to towns and townships linking up, and it ought not to be neglected, because there may be something in it.
With regard to the other limiting factor, the absorptive capacity of the Dominions, I am not clear in my own mind what the present position is. I understand that a series of schemes for taking children has been put forward by provincial Governments, by provincial bodies of banisters and others, by the Eugenics Society, by doctors and professors. I understand that those will all come within the scope of the scheme.

Mr. Shakespeare: If they want to.

Mr. Lindsay: I put the question to my hon. Friend when he was speaking because I was not clear who were outside the scheme except the children going to the United States of America. I understand that, in order to be quite certain about the balance of migration, if any child is going to the Dominions notification has to be made to the Children's Overseas Reception Board. If I am wrong, perhaps I shall be corrected.

Mr. Shakespeare: We hope to get knowledge of all children who are going. The hon. Member will realise that there may be a child between the age of nothing and five going out with its mother and having nothing to do with our scheme. We want to know the total number going, but we are concerned only with those going under our scheme.

Mr. Lindsay: I am not concerned with children under five but with those between 5 and 16 who are going out in one of these ways. Do they not have to notify?

Mr. Shakespeare: No.

Mr. Lindsay: Then there are still children who can go out outside the scheme? It is important to know that. I should say that several hundred or thousand children have already gone out because their parents could afford to send them. There will be still more going out because their parents can afford to send them, or some arrangement can be made outside the scheme which my hon. Friend is conducting. That, at any rate, is new. On the money question, do I understand that children from the ordinary State schools will go free, that the parents will pay money to the British Government and that this will go into a fund, and that on the other side funds will be made available by the Canadian Government for the maintenance and the education of the children there? I know that it is not our business to inquire about the arrangements of the Canadian Government, but before long somebody will want to know how much the foster parents in Canada are to receive.
My hon Friend said, "There will be waiting on the shores on the other side members representing all these voluntary societies who are going to look after the children, and that is why I put them on the Advisory Council," but that is not the


whole story, because a great many of the children will be looked after by those who best look after children, apart from one or two organisations like the Y.M.C.A., and that is by the provincial Governments. They have no opposite number here. As far as I know, the best after-care work was done by the Manitoba Government and the Ontario Government and, in Australia, by the New South Wales Government, who sent round their welfare officers, men who knew the job. There must be a close connection between the schools where ordinary children are coming from and the parents and the schools in Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia and elsewhere. How is that contact to be made? My hon. Friend said that he was going to attach to the High Commissioner's Office in the Dominions some person who was going to look after that side of the work. What sort of person? Is he to be a civil servant?

Mr. Shakespeare: indicated assent.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not wish to say a word against civil servants, but what I want to be certain about is that the liaison between the children in these homes in Canada and in these schools will be a human one, and that the parents here will know how their children are getting on, just as they hear from their children who are in Somerset or Dorset. An hon. Friend has said that the visits of parents to children upset the evacuation scheme. I do not agree. Properly organised visits to children from time to time did not upset the evacuation scheme. In many cases the visits were a great solace to the parents. They often said they missed the children in the evenings between five and seven and were glad to go to see them at week-ends and the children were equally glad. Even children who are at preparatory schools occasionally go home or get visits from their parents. Therefore, we cannot neglect to keep touch with the homes in Canada, and I want to be absolutely certain that there will be a really effective liaison. In the past, when boys who were between 14 and 16 went out to work, we had, I will not say scandals but a very bad problem arising because some of them had walked back to Montreal and got into doss houses or were lost temporarily for several months simply because after-care was lacking. Now we are dealing with younger children, and it is most important that this side of the

question should be thoroughly examined, because we have not heard much about it this afternoon. It may be that my hon. Friend felt that this was a matter for the Dominions and that he could not very well enlarge on it, because he trusted those who were going to receive the children.
A further point I would like to make is this: If we evacuate 7,000 children a month, we shall be sending to the Dominions about 84,000 children a year. That is about 1 or 1½ per cent. of the child population we are embracing in this scheme. What is the policy of the Government in this matter? If the policy is to send overseas mouths that would otherwise be eating food here, this is not to my mind a considerable scheme. If it is an attempt to revive migration, why not say so? Nobody could be more pleased than I should be. Moreover, I would stress the educational advantage of a child going to the Dominions during these preparatory school years. There is a great deal to be said for it, and all who have had the privilege of travelling in those years have remembered it as a vital part of their education. So I do not mind reviving migration.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the race is soft, and all the rest of it. I do not think the experience of the last two months bears that out. We do know that there was no chance for children to go abroad until this scheme came about. None of the Dominions would take them. It is only comparatively recently that the Fairbridge scheme has been started. Therefore, as we have had this generous gesture from the Dominions, I am strongly in favour of accepting it to the full and of calling it by its proper name. If I am told by the hon. Gentleman that this is the limit of shipping capacity—suppose, for instance, instead of having had 45,000, or whatever the figure was, of applications, in the last few months, he had had 100,000—I would say, Let him not be afraid of enlarging his scheme or let any other schemes about which we mean business stand in the way. If the Government do not mean business about this scheme, but want just to get a reasonable flow month by month, very carefully organised and within the capacity of the Dominions, let us look at it in that light. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will


no doubt look at it with his particular eye, with regard to its educational significance. He will see that proper justice is done to the various local education authorities in the country and that proper educational arrangements are made, so far as possible, in the Dominions, so that children get the full advantages of the scheme.
I look upon this scheme as one method of preserving the children who are to carry on the English-speaking race and to keep them in safety. I do not look upon these children as refugees. If we want a large number of the children of this country to get the great advantages of the scheme and complete security—as we think it will be—overseas, we should certainly not talk in Dunkirk terms; we should, to the limit of shipping capacity and of absorptive capacity in the Dominions, bearing in mind the excellent arrangements that have already been made in regard to welfare in trains and shipping, go forward with the utmost speed. I am glad to see that Scotland is getting a slightly smaller advisory council and I hope that, as in the past, Scotland's contribution will be a very considerable one.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): This scheme aims at providing security, for the time being, in the hope of speedily getting victory.

Mr. Lindsay: I hope that Scotland will take its full part in the scheme. I should like to have specific answers to the questions which I have put. I would ask the Minister whether he considers that he is trying to get the maximum number of children out of the country or is just taking advantage of an interesting development by removing children from this country to the Dominions for a limited period.

5.35 P.m.

Mr. Mander: I hope that one question put to the Minister by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) will not be answered, and that was as to the precise date on which the first batch of these children will be sent. I do not think the hon. Gentleman really meant that. I hope they will be sent at the earliest possible moment, and that the Minister will take advantage of the shipping that must be in the ports of this country, owing to recent events.

There is no reason why we should be held up an account of shipping. The hon. Gentleman explained the scheme very lucidly, and I think he acted with great rapidity and decision in setting up the organisation to deal with the matter. Judging by results at the moment, he has certainly shown an example of how to "go to it." He got to it with great rapidity, and I hope that he will continue successfully doing so.
I should like to deal with one question of principle, relating to the view taken by some people in this country that this scheme is altogether wrong, and that we should live here in our island home, not being disturbed or moved from our usual habits, but carrying on in all circumstances. People who take that view have not thought the matter out. They have not grasped the position. They are living in a world of illusion if they imagine that anything if that kind can happen. It has been said that this country is a fortress, but it is a mild fortress at the present time. Heaven knows what sort of a fortress it will be before long, and it is clearly in the national interest that as large a proportion as possible of unproductive units of the population who have to be fed should be removed to safety overseas. I imagine that the idea of the offer arose, and that persons living overseas made this generous gesture, because they felt that, as they were living at some distance from the seat of action, they were not enduring, or were likely to endure, savage attacks, suffering, mutilation and death such as is happening to people in Europe. They naturally felt—and this is fully understandable—that if they could do some little thing by relieving parents here of anxiety, caring for the next generation, and assisting the war effort too, they would very much like to do it. That feeling is not confined to people in the Empire, but exists in the United States of America.
If we had unlimited space to send large numbers of children the question of compulsion might arise, but, at the present time, as has been pointed out, the whole thing is necessarily on a very restricted scale. This is only the beginning. It is an experiment which we think may lead to further and greater developments. It is not anything more at the moment than an attempt to deal with a minute percentage of the number


of children in the schools of this country. I agree with what the Minister said about the indirect effects. The scheme may have very far-reaching effects, in the sense that children who have spent part of their lives overseas will never forget the experience. They may make contacts and friendships which will last through their lives. Many of them may settle overseas, and they will be united in sentiment with this country. The scheme will certainly link together what appears to be the only stalwart constitutional structure in the world, created by the Anglo-Saxon race and the races associated with it. The scheme will have far-reaching effects in that way. Offers have been made, not only through the Governments but, as has already been said, by different organisations. I notice that an offer has been made by the Law Society of Upper Canada to take the children of judges and barristers and place them in homes in Canada. I suppose that will be apart from the main scheme, and will be arranged directly.
The Minister made it clear that he proposes to select a cross-section of the whole population. It is important that it should not be thought, either in this country or abroad, that we were specially selecting one section, either rich or poor, to be treated in a favourable way. We want good, healthy, normal children, who come up to the standard agreed upon and who can be looked upon as proper representatives and ambassadors—as they will be, little ambassadors—overseas, representing this country. We must make a good impression to begin with, and we must keep it up. I should have thought there would be no difficulty in sending good, healthy children of the type required in the Dominions coming not only from rich homes—if there are any rich homes left, and, at any rate, there will not be many much longer—but from poor homes too. I am glad the Government are not pursuing a policy of sending whole schools as such, because obviously there would be, not the intimate contact and co-operation on the other side that is wanted, but little communities isolated by themselves, which would be contrary to the spirit of the scheme.
The question of sterling has been raised. A great many people in this country have been exercising their minds—those who have sterling—as to whether or not they can send their children

abroad and make use of their money in maintaining their children. In explaining the scheme, the hon. Gentleman came to the point in reference to the Canadian Government about blocked sterling in connection with certain schools. I notice that the Canadian Government are not altogether satisfied with that scheme, and that Mr. Crerar, the Minister of Mines, speaking the other day on the subject said that the Canadian Government were giving every encouragement to the scheme and that they had instructed Mr. Massey, the High Commissioner, to urge the British Government to loosen the present severe restrictions on British funds available for such child migration. No doubt he will have to take up that point and discuss it. There is a great danger in extending a scheme of this kind. It is possible that the poor will be displaced by those who have money, in which case a feeling would grow up that for those who can pay it is easy to send their children abroad and that poorer people are at a disadvantage. I hope that the Government will adhere firmly to the decision that they have come to not to allow the slightest difference beween one section of the community and another.
I hope that the Minister will have no hesitation in exercising his veto, as he said he would, if he finds that too many places in ships are being taken by people who have made private arrangements—and who are naturally very anxious to do so in their own interests—and that he will stop it. Whether this can be done, can be judged only with regard to the time and the numbers involved. This matter of sending children abroad is one of the most difficult that parents have been faced with since the war started. It will make people realise more deeply than anything which has happened what the war really is, and what is happening, because they have to part, perhaps for years and, in some cases, for ever, from children to whom they are absolutely devoted. They are called upon to take this decision, and it is important for them to know that the children will be properly looked after and cared for while they are away.
One or two speakers have raised a question to which I do not think we have yet had an answer. On page 3 of the report there appears this passage:


In future, parents who are able to make their own arrangements for the evacuation of their children overseas should be required to obtain permission of the executive body referred to at 3a before they are allowed to leave the country.
It is not clear to me that anything has been said so far as to whether that principle has been adopted or not. I understood the Minister to say that he thought and hoped that they would have to do so. But are they to be compelled to do so? We ought to have a clear declaration of the views of the Government with regard to that passage in page 3, because it is not clear to a great many hon. Members. There is another question that I would like to ask. Assume that parents have given their consent to their child going. Suppose, when the day of parting comes, as I know has happened in a certain number of cases under private arrangement, and the parents go to see the child off, their hearts are so wrung that they will not let him go. What is the position? Have they surrendered their right to the child? Would the child be compulsorily taken? If not, it means that in spite of the parents' authorisation for the removal of the child, at the last moment the parents have the right to say, "We have changed our minds, and we would rather, after all, that the child did not go." In so far as that is done, it is rather upsetting, because it means that the space on board the ship is not to be used unless you have certain children held in reserve to deal with such a case, and I understand that that is what is going to happen.

Viscountess Astor: Might I ask a question? Does the hon. Member think that parents ought to be allowed to do that after the Government have taken all the trouble?

Mr. Mander: I was not proposing to answer questions now.

Viscountess Astor: But I would like to know.

Mr. Mander: I was putting certain questions to the Minister, and I hope that in due course I shall get an answer. There is one other point. One wondered what would happen to the money contributed by these various parents under the two schemes. I understand that it goes to the British Exchequer, that it is not paid over at any time to any

Dominion or other Government, but that it remains here to our credit. I am glad to have confirmation of that fact. In conclusion, I wish the scheme every success. I think it has been well conceived and thought out. It is a great adventure for the parents, the children, the country and the Dominions, and I hope it will have tremendous success.

5.49 P.m.

Mr. Woolley: I feel some comfort at this moment in the knowledge that hon. Members display a considerable tolerance towards anyone who may be making a maiden speech. There are, perhaps, two especial reasons why I may ask for the indulgence of the Committee. First of all, the former Member for my constituency was a very eloquent and eminent statesman, and is now the Lord Chancellor; secondly, I have not gone through the turmoil of an election, which has been the experience of so many hon. Members, and, therefore, I have not had the opportunity of preparing material in my election addresses to retail to the House. I have been, as it were, thrown into the water without having previously learned to swim.
There are various reasons which constrain me to speak at this particular moment. The first is that I am convinced that the scheme is well conceived, and, secondly, I wish the scheme every possible success. The three factors, any one of which may determine the extent of this scheme, are, firstly, the number of applications which are made by parents for children to be evacuated. We have learned from my hon. Friend that that number is in the region of 52,000. There is another determining factor, and that is the capacity in the Dominions and other countries overseas for receiving these children. I am very glad that reference has been made to the generosity of the Dominions in the way that they have spontaneously responded to this scheme.
The third point is the available shipping space. We have been told that it is this available shipping space which is the determining factor in this evacuation scheme. I am sure that we all appreciate the responsibilities of the Minister of Shipping and the great demands which are made upon his Department at this time, but I am certain the Committee will agree that the Minister should make every possible


effort to see that the maximum amount of shipping space is made available for these children. The reasons for that are obvious. For every 10,000 children we send from these shores, there are 10,000 fewer mouths to feed, and the shipping space which was previously utilised in bringing the food and provisions for these children will be available for the bringing into this country of essential war materials. In like manner, for every 10,000 children who are now here and who may be evacuated, there is so much less money being sent abroad for the children's food and provision. Thereby the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so much less money to find, and it consequently follows that he has so much more money available for the purchase of essential war materials.
It has been said this afternoon that there are those who feel that there is an element of defeatism in this evacuation scheme. Surely, if we can see in the scheme a contribution to the general war effort, then the charge of defeatism falls to the ground. I feel that in the two ways that I have mentioned, namely, the creation of shipping space for increased war materials and the freeing of money for their purchase, there are definite contributions, quite apart from other considerations which might be taken into account. Therefore, I feel that the charge of defeatism is not one which can be levelled at this particular scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, in his broadcast last Saturday night, said that this war may well be won by those who possess the last week's supply of food. It may be said with equal truth that it may be won by the country which possesses the last gallon of petrol or the longest purse, and it is conceivable that the margin between our victory and a condition of stalemate may be comparatively small. It is, therefore, up to the Government to accept with both hands every scheme which will make any contribution whatever to the war effort. This scheme definitely does that.
Dealing for a moment with the scheme itself, it has been laid down almost as a primary principle that there shall be no class distinction. The country as a whole would not tolerate any such distinction whatever. The whole scheme would be frustrated by class distinction, and we should have unrest in the country

if such were to obtain. But it is quite obvious that if there are more parents desirous of sending their children abroad than can be accommodated, while there must be no class distinction, there must be a selection. It has been suggested this afternoon that various methods of selection should be applied. One method of selection was to take the best type of child, but that is a very wide term, and it is difficult to understand. What is the best type of child? The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) mentioned the ambassadorial value of the child, and I feel that this is perhaps what the Selection Committee should keep in mind more than anything else. Ambassadorial value in no way depends upon the class from which a child comes. I feel that the ambassadorial value of a child will be a very good method of selection, realising that these children have a great opportunity of further uniting the ties which bind the Empire together and strengthening the bonds of friendship which exist between this country and certain foreign countries to which our children may go.
There are one or two other points which I would like to mention. Our United Kingdom evacuation scheme proved one thing, that very often we did not send a type A child into a type A home, and that is a very important point. We should take every possible care to see that a type A child goes into a type A home. Otherwise, one can well foresee the potential dangers to these children, taken away from their parents and sent overseas into new surroundings and new educational facilities and new homes, unless those homes have some relation with the type of homes from which the children have come. Otherwise the lives of those children are going to be made much less happy. If the right type of child is not put into the right type of home, the novelty which may be at first experienced in these reception homes will quickly wear away, and I think that would spell disaster. I hope this point will be borne in mind. At the moment this scheme envisages children being evacuated up to the age of 16. Probably some of those children will shortly be entering industry. The parents who are signifying their willingness to allow their children to go overseas are virtually handing over to the Board the parental control of these children and the


parental interest. We must be perfectly certain that not a single child who goes overseas shall be exploited when he or she arrives at the age of industry. That is a point which I feel the Board must definitely take into consideration.
May I now come to what I feel is perhaps the weakest link in a very well-forged chain? The principle has been laid down that this must not be a class scheme, and I feel that there is something in what I am going to say which might endanger that principle. We have been told that this scheme is for school children who have attained the age of five and who have not yet attained the age of 16. But we have tens of thousands of children in this country of the ages of 14 and 15 and who are working. Is there any reason why those children should not be afforded the same opportunity as their more fortunate brothers and sisters who are remaining at school? It perhaps strikes at the very root of the principle of "no class distinction." The Board should make representations to the Minister of Labour to see whether he can free those children, so that they may have an equal opportunity to participate in that scheme particularly those who are not employed in any essential war industry.
Finally, I should like to pay my humble tribute to the industry with which the Board has gone about its business. It seems to me that perhaps some good will come out of this evil. We are contemplating taking our children away from the physical and mental dangers which the modern type of warfare brings. We shall be bringing to thousands of children an opportunity which is normally given to few. We shall be strengthening the fibre of resistance and determination of the people who are left at home—a very vital point—and I believe that the manner in which the Board have gone about their functions, cutting through red tape, augurs well for the future success of the scheme. If they pursue their policy with the same determination, they will make a real contribution to the war effort.

6.2 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Woolley) spoke so fluently that it was almost impossible to believe that he was making a maiden speech. It is no good telling us that he has had no practice. 
We know that he must have had a good education in speaking, to be able to plead his cause so well, and I congratulate him not only on the manner in which he delivered his speech, but on his knowledge of his subject—which is something very rare. I do not want to be a critic of the Government. I had hoped that with a new Government, we should get new methods, and get rid of a lot of the bad methods of the old Government. I hoped that the new Government would have a new way of doing things. I would have preferred that they should not have turned this matter over to a Departmental Committee. They should have asked, "Who knows most about the Dominions and about children?" Then, they might have got a committee with a chairman who already knew his subject.
I am not saying a word against the chairman of the committee, but I doubt whether he has ever been to the Dominions, and I know that children and education have never been his subjects. Good as he is, I feel that to make him chairman of the committee was wrong. The Government ought to have got a chairman who really understood both the Dominions and education, and to have had a small committee of members who understood the subject. I know that the hon. Gentleman has done his best, but, in spite of that speech about how smoothly the thing is working and how wonderfully everything is being done, I feel that the Government have adopted a bad policy. Surely the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now ought to have been on the committee. He spent years studying education; it is one of his chief subjects. We are still working on the old party lines. That is all wrong, and the country is tired of it. If you had got a chairman who knew the subject and a small committee, things might have been done differently—for instance, in connection with the shipping companies. I will not go into that, that is not my affair; but every one of us who knows anything knows that an advisory committee of that size is not practicable.

Mr. George Griffiths: I thought it was a public meeting.

Viscountess Astor: I thought, as somebody else said, that it was a meeting at the Albert Hall. I know someone who was asked to be a member of the committee, and who said, "I am much too


busy." They said, "Then give us your name." That is not good enough in war time. We do not want a chairman who has to learn the subject. After all, the hon. Gentleman knows that this was not "his cup of tea." I think the House of Commons should protest about such a procedure. I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman is doing very well, and the whole thing sounds very well on paper; but I have heard many things from the Front Bench about schemes which sound well on paper, yet are not working well at all.
Many people are very unhappy about this question, particularly in regard to selection. The hon. Gentleman said that there would be so many who wanted to go, that they might have to select the children of the mothers who applied first. The mothers who apply first may not be the best mothers, and may not have the best children. The whole success of our evacuation plan depends on the children who are selected first. Somebody asked, "How can you tell which children are the best?" I do not say that the school teachers can necessarily tell which are the best. I do not want any class basis. I can go down a row of houses, where every man is earning the same wages, and show one child who is a credit to the country and another who is not. Somebody referred to the question of environment. If the Dominions think for one minute that we are sending our Poor Law children it will wreck the scheme. The other day two Canadian ladies, very representative people, said to me, "Do the Government realise how much has been written in the Canadian and American papers about your evacuation?" One of them said, "If these children are not properly selected it will wreck the whole scheme." One of the first people who applied was a mother who was bored with her children, and wanted to get rid of them. She came to me to help her, and I said, "I will do nothing of the kind." We want the children of parents who are either serving in the Forces or are working so hard that they cannot give the children the care that they would like to, though they have brought them up in a good fashion. The way to get good selection is not by this enormous advisory committee, but by small local committees, and by giving them more time.
What makes me suspicious is that on the committee there are two women who are not in the least interested in children. They are very good women in their way. I am not criticising them because they are maiden ladies: some of the best work for children is done by maiden ladies, but these two maiden ladies do not happen to be interested in children. I hope that the next time the Government undertake something of this sort they will not palm off on us such a committee as this, but will have people who know their job, and have not to learn it from others. We have seen so many people on the Front Bench who have had to learn their jobs. We have seen men doing well at one job, popped into another job. We see the present Minister of Agriculture: he is a very good man, but he had never heard of agriculture before he was put into that Ministry. That system is not good enough. I am not criticising the Minister personally, but I am criticising the new Government's method of doing things exactly as the old Government did. They talk about the "problem child," and about the "good child." I should like to know what is their standard. If you take a child of five who has been properly trained from the age of two, that child will be far better fitted for evacuation, even if he comes from a slum home, than a child who has been spoiled from the age of two, though he comes from the best of homes. We want the best of children, particularly in Canada and, even more, in the United States.
The Minister said that other children might come into the scheme. Does he realise that by the time they get their visas and passports none of those children could get there under £30? There are people who have homes waiting for children in Canada and the United States, but cannot send them because the cost is so enormous. I have here a document which was brought to me by a man today. He asks what arrangements are being made to take advantage of the many offers that are coming from the United States? He understands that several of these offers involve no transfer of currency whatsoever, and that groups of mothers and children are to be entertained by similar groups in the United States. These offers, he says, seem to have many advantages, but he understands that at the moment the Board are not in a position to give such schemes


their blessing. For instance, there is a headmistress, a remarkably capable woman, who is ready to organise a group system here, and there is a headmistress in America waiting to receive the children. The children are all picked out, but unless the Government help with the visas they cannot get there.
I want to know whether the Government are going to do anything about group migration particularly to the United States, and probably later, to Canada? A certain American business man who has worked over here in a factory is going over to see a group of his associates in America who want to offer hospitality to children of parents in that particular industry over here. He is going out to look over the homes and is expected to come back and offer to take too children to America. He wants to know what help he will get from the Government for these children? There are American professors and other educationists, business men, lawyers and similar groups of people who are willing to take the children of parents belonging to similar groups over here, so that they may go to America and settle there. I think that this is the best way to do it. We do not want an A1 child to go into a C3 home. I think that children of lawyers would be better in the homes of lawyers, and children of soldiers and sailors and even of butchers would also be better in the homes of similar people over there. There is even an offer of hospitality to the children of butchers.
Dr. Albert Mansbridge, a great educationist, who has travelled much in America, would be willing to go to America and get into touch with all the groups of people that he knows there, the university professors and so on, and organise a scheme from that point of view. He would be prepared to be a liaison officer between the professional people in America and the professional people here. If the Government had a little imagination, that is the kind of thing that they would do. It would be far better for the children and for us. It would be fatal to get children into homes of the wrong kind for them. I ask the Minister to consider that and to see whether he could not put a few other people on to his advisory council. I might say that I was very anxious to get on to it but no doubt I was very well

kept off because I am not a very good member of committees where red tape is concerned.

Mr. Shakespeare: There is no Member of Parliament either on the Council or on the Board.

Viscountess Astor: It is a great pity. That is all I have to say. I do not think that they ought to have drawn it up in that way. If a Member of Parliament knows something about the subject, why should he not be on the committee? He is as important as a person who knows nothing about it. I do not want a Member of Parliament to be chosen just because he is a Member of Parliament if he knows nothing about it, and I do not want a Minister just because he is a Minister, if he knows nothing about it. I know that Mrs. Roosevelt will not allow red tape to interfere with the reception of children in America. Professional people, particularly, ask whether red tape is going to interfere with getting group children over there. This would not cost the country a penny as these people are prepared to take children for the duration and to pay for them. I want an answer from the Minister on whether red tape is to be allowed to interfere.
It has been said that it is no use getting too many children into the scheme because they will not let them in, but Americans are longing for English people to come. We have been getting into this country from Europe people we do not want. If hon. Members had watched the arrival at Plymouth last week of people evacuated from France, it would have made their hair stand on end. I am not blaming the Government for that. We do not necessarily want our children to stay there for ever, or to keep the people who come here, for ever. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that red tape will not be in evidence on this side. I can assure him that red tape will not be in evidence on the other side. Will he also tell us how many of these people, beside those of the Salvation Army and the rest, have been to the Dominions or to America? That is most important. I hope that the Minister will not think that I am too critical, but I really feel that it is time we said to the Government, "Now that we are at war there is no time for departmental committees." We want the very best representatives and we want them to get to work quickly. A lot


of us are growing rather impatient. We are not as happy as we might be about this and although we believe that the council will do their best, we are not at all certain that we could not have obtained a better body.

6.21 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I hope that the Committee will permit me to refer once more to that admirable maiden speech that we have had from the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Woolley). I do not say that I congratulate him, but I congratulate Spen Valley. His speech is the best we have had this afternoon, and I hope that he will make a point of repeating speeches in this House equally well thought out and prepared and equally well given, without reading and without notes. My first reference to the scheme that has been put before us to-day is that I want a little more elucidation about the number of people who have applied. As I understood from the hon. Member 40,000 people had applied from State-aided schools for passage overseas and 12,000 from non-State-aided parents. Is that the number of people who have applied to go to the Dominions or who have applied to go overseas?

Mr. Shakespeare: Every parent is asked to express a preference either for one Dominion or to say whether he will let his child go to any Dominion, and whether America is mentioned in that matter.

Colonel Wedgwood: So it includes all who want to go either to America or the Dominions?

Mr. Shakespeare: indicated assent.

Colonel Wedgwood: I have sent 500 cases to the hon. Member, and of these I am afraid that more than half will not come within the scheme. They were from people who wanted to go to America or from parents who wanted to accompany their children or children under five. Do I understand that the 12,000 include all these, in which case there can only be about 4,000 or 5,000 of the non-State-aided school category which come within the scheme? Am I right in that?

Mr. Shakespeare: No. All those who apply presumably are eligible, because they have already been seconded by the local education authority.

Colonel Wedgwood: That covers the whole of the 40,000 and the whole of the 12,000? The next point upon which I was not clear was with regard to payment. I understand that from the State-aided school the parents will continue to pay to the Government here what they have been paying in the past and that the Government will pay to the Canadian Government some unspecified sum—whether the whole of what parents pay I do not know. I will presume for the occasion that they are paying over to the Canadian Government in Canadian dollars the total contributions of the parents on this side, both the State-aided school parents contributing 6s. and the other parents who are paying £1 a week. That sum will be passed over to the Canadian Government, and the Canadian Government use that sum, with any supplement required to pay the foster-parents over there. Am I wrong?

Mr. Shakespeare: We have agreed to pay over to the Dominion Government a sum as a flat rate to be agreed upon in writing, and they can use it for the general welfare of the children. I understand that with regard to Canada there is no arrangement, and never will be, to recoup the individual parents for maintaining the children. They are entertaining our children at their own expense.

Colonel Wedgwood: That is very important. If children are maintained at the expense of the foster parents, they will be infinitely better looked after than if they were farmed out, as has been too often the case in the existing evacuation scheme. It is very important to get that out. The parents in this country have their greatest security in the fact that their children are being looked after for nothing and are not being made part of a commercial venture.
I now come to my fundamental objection to the scheme as it has been adumbrated to-day. The Minister has his heart in the old Empire migration policy. This is essentially an extension of that policy—children from the Mother Country being sent to the Dominions to increase the connection between the centre and the Dominions, which has for many years been the policy of a great many people on the opposite side of the House and of some on this side who believe that the best way of building up the British Empire is by an interchange of population. That may


be all very well, but that is certainly not my reason for desiring the present emigration of children in this country. It may be a very desirable policy in times of peace, but it has nothing whatever to do with the war that we are carrying on at the present time.
When the hon. Gentleman made his broadcast the other day he gave a second alternative point of view, not so much the building-up of the Empire, but appealing to parents to send their children because they might be bombed. He was appealing through fear for the safety of the children. I do not think that that is a fair appeal to make to the parents. I do not think that it is the real background of this movement to-day. People who are anxious to get their children away from this country to-day are not running away from this country; they are hoping to win the war. The essence of this movement is not the safety of the children; it is not even the safety of the race, though that bulks more largely than safety from bombs. If we are defeated here, do let us have at least a nucleus of free peoples to carry on the traditions. The danger that I fear is that if they remain here, and we are conquered, they will be perverted, and against that we may well take every precaution. Do not let us imagine that it is a question of getting rid of the children of parents who are frantic with fear. Far from it.
The object of this scheme, I am quite certain, should be to give us a better chance of beating the Nazis, because, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley pointed out, the fewer mouths we have to feed, the more munitions we can afford and the longer we can hold out if the importation of food to this country becomes difficult. That is not all. The more our fighting men are relieved of anxiety for their wives and children, the better the fight they will be able to put up. I have had a letter from a Scotsman who says he wants to get his children away solely in order that he may be free to give his life without knowing that if he does die, his wife and children will be as those wretched refugees. To free our men from continued anxieties ought to be the object of the hon. Gentleman. It is not only that we want our soldiers to be better soldiers, and our men in the villages who will have to fight to fight with a better

spirit; we want to keep our roads free from streams of fugitives. You are talking about getting rid of 7,000 children a month. How can you relieve in that way congestion on the roads in the Eastern counties if the German devils do get a landing?
When I wrote to the Prime Minister on the subject, nearly three months ago, I put forward the plea that America should be asked to take, not a few children between 5 and 16 years of age, but our useless mouths, so that we could hold the fort for ever and fight with our sword arm free. It was a scheme which would have been accepted and welcomed in America, which would have taken not merely the children between 5 and 16, but all little children, expectant mothers and, possibly, the aged. There is no limit to American hospitality and generosity, but this Government rejected the proposal as inopportune. The very appointment of the Committee over which the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions presides is almost an insult to America. If you expect real live-hearted generosity from America, do not work through the Dominions. Work through the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is not even represented on the Committee. The Government continue to turn down something which would really help to win this war, and have substituted for it a mean little scheme that—

Mr. Shakespeare: What offer is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to?

Colonel Wedgwood: When I wrote to the Prime Minister I asked him whether he would ask America if she would take 5,000,000.

Mr. Shakespeare: I have had no offer.

Colonel Wedgwood: America has been offering ever since, and has been cold-shouldered by the hon. Gentleman. She has offered millions of dollars and thousands of homes, and nothing has been done.

Mr. Shakespeare: This is so important that I want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to get it in its proper perspective. A few days ago I was asked to see the American Ambassador and discuss with him practical details of the scheme. He asked me for a copy of the report, so that he could communicate with


his Government, and I am now waiting to hear from him. I have not the slightest doubt that what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says will be ultimately true, knowing the very generous nature of America, but it is not fair to me to suggest that I held up the scheme.

Colonel Wedgwood: You went to see the Ambassador a few days ago—

Viscountess Astor: When you come to this American scheme, does it mean that the same Advisory Council will operate, or are you really willing to take the advice of people who know America, have lived there and were even born there?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): The hon. Lady must not interrupt.

Colonel Wedgwood: I think the offers from America have been far more generous than we could have reasonably expected, but America has not been asked to do anything, and there has been a definite refusal to approach that country in any way. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) has been over there for nearly a month and has been cold-shouldered, as has been all the work done by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite), who has not even been put on the Committee. No sort of notice has been taken of anything to be done in connection with America, all because the hon. Gentleman has in the back of his mind, and in his soul, this passionate devotion to the Empire and the idea that children must only go to the Empire. I do not think the Empire has anything to do with the case before us to-day.
The case before us to-day is the effective prosecution of this war; and we should take every opportunity that might be offered, and ask for any help we might obtain, towards reducing the number of useless mouths in this country, thereby increasing the efficiency of the people able to fight and produce munitions. That is the way to put the scheme to the people of this land if you really want them to let their children go. You should point out that they will not be funks and cowards, but will be doing the best service to the State by allowing their children to

be taken care of by American or Canadian people.
When I originally proposed this scheme, I was thinking of something more than help in the prosecution of this war. I was thinking also of the enormous ambassadorial value of our children and their propaganda value—a propaganda for that closer friendship and union between the British and American people which may be our safeguard in this war. There is nothing like the children of this country to advertise this country and to draw America and ourselves closer together. The other day, when France was at her last gasp, we offered her union with this country. The time may come when America may make a like offer to us, or we may make a like suggestion to America. That day, when it comes, will be for the winning of this war and the salvation of the race. In the scheme which I hoped for, that day might come soon. I hope I may be excused in considering the scheme put before us to-day as trivial, valueless, and a grave disappointment to the people of this country.

6.42 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I propose to intervene for only a moment and not to deal with the details of the scheme, about which questions have been asked. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education will answer those points, but I want to say a word on the subject of policy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down is perfectly right. This is not an emigration policy; it is a policy which is part of the defence of this country. Because some of our children are going overseas, it is not an emigration policy any more than the evacuation of some of our children from dangerous areas to rural areas is a "back to the land" policy. You may have an advantage in one case, that you get a closer unity between Britain and the different parts of the British Commonwealth, and in the other case there may be a better understanding between town and country. But that is not the object of the scheme. The object of it is that it is part of our defence policy and, just as here at home children have been moved from dangerous places to safer places, so to a limited extent we are able to send children overseas. It is important, however, to remember that the amount that can be done


under this or any scheme is necessarily limited.
There is talk as if it were possible to send away all the children from this country, but the scheme is strictly limited by the amount of shipping available. That does not merely mean the ships available, but also the ships for the protection of the vessels carrying children. That is the first thing which must be in the mind of any Government in considering a scheme. It is useless to suggest that there is not some risk. Parents have to judge between the different risks which have to be taken at home and abroad, and the important thing is not to over-estimate or underestimate either of those risks. To hear some people speak you would think there was no safety at all for children here—

Colonel Wedgwood: It is not a question of risk. If the right hon. Gentleman really thinks it is a question of military policy and the relative risks of stopping here or going overseas, then the opinion of parents has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Attlee: That may be the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion, but that is the kind of thing which has been discussed quite a lot in the newspapers and occasionally you get the idea that, somehow or other, you must clear everybody except fighting men out of the country because it is so dangerous. I do not take that line because I quite firmly believe we will defeat invasion. The Government and the country are not facing this question in any sense of panic at all, but it is necessary to have a sense of proportion. Whatever is done needs very careful selection and I think extremely good work has been done by this body in the selection of children. I think it absolutely right that there should not be privilege for one lot of people as against another. I think it is right that a fair sample of the population should be sent overseas. Where I do agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is that this is part of a fighting policy. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why we are dealing with the Dominions only, and why do we refuse an offer from the United States of America. A little later on he said, "Why do you not ask the United States?" There is really some difference between refusing an offer and not asking.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Government have had an offer of a limited amount. I want to know why they, not only did not accept that offer, but did not ask for more.

Mr. Attlee: I am informed that there has been no direct offer. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why we did not accept that offer and when challenged, he said, "Why not ask?" He cannot have it both ways. The suggestion that the whole idea of going to the United States is being turned down is quite incorrect. My hon. Friend has been in contact with the American Ambassador. But there again, it is a limited contribution that can be made to the solution of this problem, and this is what I really rose to say that we must view this thing with a sense of proportion. It does make a valuable contribution, but I stress the point that it is only a limited contribution.

Mr. Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the removal of 1 per cent. of the children in one year is a valuable contribution?

Mr. Attlee: It makes a certain contribution. I do not think it is a very big contribution, but I do not know what number the hon. Gentleman thinks we can remove, given the shipping conditions.

Mr. Buchanan: With this limited proportion of 1 per cent. of the population who are to be selected, those who are left behind may think that they are not good enough to go. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there may be created among those who are refused a great feeling of annoyance and irritation?

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Gentleman might be quite right if that were being done, but what is happening is that applications are being made and taken up. At the present time, we have applications enough to fill the vacancies at the present moment, and after that the matter can go on again. I did not suggest that we are making an arbitrary selection. As a matter of fact, if we take a proportion of the various applications made, we take a certain proportion of the population.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: After listening to the statement made by


the Minister, and having disagreed on so many occasions since 3rd September last, with the policy of the Government, I am glad that to-day I am able not only to agree with the Government, but with the general feeling of the Committee on this question of the partial evacuation of children overseas. Like many other hon. Members, I should have preferred a scheme on a very large scale, but I am prepared to admit that it may be that those who know the amount of shipping available have had to limit the scheme accordingly. I should have liked also to see the most dangerous areas of the country treated as an urgent problem and given preference over all other areas. It is an accepted fact that there are some extremely dangerous areas, such as the coastal towns nearest to France, towns on the North Sea coast, and certain areas where there are very large munitions works on which the enemy may be tempted to make a very vicious attack in the near future.
The Government have laid down that the scheme is to be based partially on the policy of the national defence of the country. I regret to hear it said that that is the main basis of the scheme. If I were asked what was the main basis of the scheme for sending children out of this country, I should say that it was being done on humane grounds for the purpose of taking the children away to a place of safety. Although I would have liked to have seen a larger scheme, I am humane enough to welcome the fact that even a moderate number of children will be sent away. I rather suspect that the main reason for taking children out of the country is to give to those who may be most nervous an opportunity to go away, in order to keep up the morale of thee country. One may talk on the wireless, on the platform, through the Press and in the House of Commons about carrying on the war to the last man and the last shilling, but if one has screaming women and children in this country in tremendous bombing raids—

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Screaming women? Has the hon. Member ever heard them? They do not scream.

Mr. McGovern: I have heard them in the House.

Dr. Summerskill: Do not make that remark.

Mr. McGovern: I will, because I have had experience of them and heard them.

The Temporary Chairman: I ask the hon. Member to address the Chair.

Mr. McGovern: I apologise, but I was led off by the hon. Lady.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member has had an unfortunate experience of women.

The Temporary Chairman: I must ask the hon. Lady not to make these continuous interruptions.

Mr. McGovern: I will only say that the morale of the population can be kept up only if there is an absence of that sort of thing. The situation could get to the stage where the suffering of the women and children would be so great that the men would be compelled to take a hand in demanding the cessation of the war. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is now very insulting. I saw bombing raids in Madrid, and screaming women and children were brought from the nearby streets into the hotel in which I was staying. The children had been dragged from their beds and were in their nightgowns and pyjamas. The din was so great that I am satisfied that if that sort of thing became general in any great population, it would have a tremendous effect upon the morale of the people and the conduct of the war. From expressions which I have heard in various parts of the country, I have the feeling that many people welcome the scheme from that point of view. I do not mind whether that is their point of view or not. As an anti-war individual, who is unrepentant for his point of view, I welcome the scheme in that it gives to human beings an opportunity to get to some place of safety in a war-mad world.
I have to-day heard of the value, in an ambassadorial sense, of these children going to America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and I have heard it said that we must be particular about the children we pick for this scheme. I hope that we are not to get a repetition in the overseas scheme of what we got in the home evacuation scheme, when children were condemned on every hand because they came from unfortunate and overcrowded environments, where there had been a lack of proper facilities and training, sometimes on the part of the mothers and the children were spurned in every part of the country because of


those failings. We ought to consider the fact that children are human beings first and foremost. I am not particularly concerned whether they belong to the middle class or the lowest stratum of the working class. I would like to see every opportunity given to them in order that they may enjoy life in some other part of the world until this war is over.
I am satisfied that there are golden opportunities to be had in various parts of what may be termed our own Empire. I have spent nearly two years in Australia, travelling from Melbourne right up to North Queensland, and staying in many towns for a week at least, and I know that there are tremendous opportunities there for children. It must be remembered that the average house in Australia is much larger than can be afforded by people in this country. The ordinary artisan in Australia pays a greater proportion of his income in rent than is done in this country, and usually the people have very roomy houses. Many of them could take these children. I am sure that the people in that part of the world are so entranced, if I may use that term, with the struggle that is being put up for what they regard, from their angle, as the benefit of humanity as a whole that they are prepared to make their contribution one of sustenance to those who are putting up this struggle in the Mother Country.
I want also to refer to the matter from the point of view of the serving men. When men are serving in the trenches or in some foreign part, it may be in India, Egypt or the Near East, putting up a struggle on behalf of this country, it would be a tremendous consolation to many of them who have motherless children at home if they felt that these children were removed to a place of security. If that were done, their minds would be eased of the thought that their children might be victims of bombing raids. I regret that there is talk of only 7,000 children going each month. The grave danger from bombing raids will come probably in the next few months. If one supposes that great bombing attacks do not take place for three months from now, then even if the scheme is running smoothly, it will mean that only 21,000 children will be taken out of the country during those three months.
It is not a very great contribution. In the absence of evidence and knowledge on the subject, I cannot imagine that the scheme can only find room for 7,000 children per month. But if I am told that is all the shipping space that can be found, then I must be satisfied. Frankly, I would say that the question of shipping should be reconsidered to see whether it is not possible to take more children. I have heard it said that we must not dump orphan children on the Dominions. It must be remembered that orphan children have a lack of opportunity, and that the opportunities offered in the Dominions are very much greater than in this country. Unfortunately for us we have a harder struggle to attain a higher standard of living than is the case in some of those other countries. It would be a welcome and humane act to send orphan children, especially those of soldiers who have died during the war, to good families in countries where they would have better opportunities.
Several hon. Members have referred to the age limit of five years, and I think consideration should be given to extending the scheme to children under five years of age. Terrible tragedy can result when child-bearing mothers are bombed. On the first evening of my arrival in Madrid, I saw a tenement at the corner of a street bombed. The following day 57 bodies were taken out—legs, arms and heads—and sent to the morgue. I would not like to see the same thing happen in this country if bombing raids took place. While we are taking younger children into places of greater security in this country, I hope that this other aspect will be discussed to a greater extent.
No doubt, considerable knowledge and thought has been applied to the question of looking after children on the journey. I remember when I went out to Australia on the "Largs Bay," there were 130 boys on board from Dr. Cossar's home. A man and woman were in charge, but, unfortunately, the boys were in continual trouble because of lack of proper supervision. The persons in charge were more interested in enjoying themselves than looking after the children allocated to their care. In the case of children going to New Zealand and Australia and on other long journeys, it is essential, for their care and happiness, that they should be properly looked after. I do not know whether this has been discussed, but I


suggest that there should be with every party of boys and girls, apart from those looking after them, tutors who could teach the children the problems of citizenship, and physical training instructors to give drill and so forth. Recreation and games of all kinds should be provided to occupy their minds.
On the question of the safety of the children during the voyage there will probably be a great difference of opinion in this Committee on the suggestion which I would make. I believe that we might expect the United States to devote a part of their Navy to escorting these vessels across the Atlantic to America, because they would not be taking part in the war, but in solving a great human problem affecting humanity as a whole. I would be prepared myself to suggest, though it might seem like rank heresy, that in spite of what the Germans have done we should intimate to the world that these vessels were sailing. We should illuminate these ships and depend even on the Germans, not to do anything to the children on their journey across the ocean. I would be prepared to put that trust in humanity although it may be at a very low ebb. The safety of the children must be considered. It is right for parents to consider when sending their children away, probably for a long stay abroad, that when the children reach the ages of 10 to 13, in places like Australia, with eternal sunshine, open life, easy living and pleasant surroundings, the parents may be faced with the problem of the children being reluctant to return to this country. There are, however, many parents who have made sacrifices in the past, and who would be prepared to make them again in the future. They will be delighted to know that their children are developing into good citizens in those parts of the world, and are perfectly happy and contented in their surroundings.
I endorse whole-heartedly this scheme. The young people must go out of the country because of the faults and failings of the older people who have brought civilisation to its present stage. The system of greed and plunder and conservatism has brought humanity throughout the world to its present state. We are thinking in terms of dispersing the population, and everywhere people are fleeing from the on-rush of armies and bombing planes. I only trust that these evacua-

tion schemes will live in the minds of men and that after this war is finished they will act as an incentive to establish a civilisation in which crudities and barbarities of this kind will never again take place. I compliment the Minster, in spite of the discussion and criticism, on his lucid statement, and I wish the children who go on this journey Godspeed.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: I have listened to many Debates on the migration or transfer of people from this country to the Dominions overseas. The Debate to-day has been on traditional lines, and I, like the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), would like to congratulate the Minister on his very lucid statement. I have very little criticism to make on it regarding the departure of these children. Nearly go per cent. of the hon. Gentleman's speech however was devoted to the evacuation of children in this country, and not to their reception over-seas. I think it is something to our credit that so few are willing to go overseas. There are some parents, no doubt, who are obsessed with the fear of the possibility of the Hitler régime coming to this country. I wish it had been possible to drop a huge bomb on that dining car the other week when he was reading the preamble to that shameful peace treaty for France. I think the man who did it would have been the saviour of mankind. Anyhow, that did not happen, and so, we are discussing the possibility of sending quite a few children overseas for their safety, and their parents, no doubt, will be very pleased if it can be arranged.
I think the Minister will find himself wrong in his calculations if he imagines that all the children will be able to go overseas who have been nominated by their parents up to now. In these cases of emigration to the Dominions, as we know, the children have to pass through a very close sieve. Though I would agree with the last speaker that the children ought to be taken without so much selection, I know that the same argument does not apply to this form of emigration as to evacuation within this country, I know that there are Dominion Governments which will lay down their own conditions. After all, children will not be selected unless they are physically fit from every point of view and, as we have always said and heard said in these De-


bates, those who pass the medical officers and go will be the pick of the basket. There are one or two things on which the Minister ought to be clear. One is whether there is to be compulsory evacuation. For another, the report says that they are not expected to be turned back at the ship. I have seen persons turned back after they had got on board emigrant ships because they were wearing spectacles. I hope the paragraph in the report which says they are not to be turned back at that late stage will be insisted upon and that, when they get so far, the children will be able to go. It will be a great disappointment and will do great harm in the country if they get so far and are then turned back. It is not a very big scheme even if it were to be carried out to the full. We have 5,000,000 school children in the country and only 52,000 are nominated. At the same time, I feel that if the Minister gets 10,000 children away he will be fairly lucky.
That, however, is not the part of the scheme with which I want to deal. I agree with earlier speakers that the main point, which has been dealt with in so few words, is the question of the reception overseas. We have no right to take children from good homes and dump them overseas without every consideration for their care and welfare. The Minister has not said very much upon that matter and I want some one to deal with it. I have grandchildren who are nominated to go overseas. My son has nominated them to go to his wife in Canada. The best system of emigration is nomination. If you can take steps to encourage nomination by relatives and friends in the Dominions, I believe there are thousands of good homes available there. They want searching for and finding, but I believe that the few children we are about to send, could be found good homes. But it is the Government here who will have to take the first step, not only to get nomination of the children from here but to see that every Government overseas, federal or provincial, is brought into the scheme.
I have not much faith in leaving these matters in the hands of voluntary societies. I have seen so much of that. I have had a long experience in trying to weed them out. I know there are good

volunteers who do good work in every direction but I do not think that the care of children should be left absolutely in the hands of voluntary societies. You must set up in each Dominion which is to receive the children, organisations under the authority of the Government who will not only look after the reception of the children but their care and after care. We hope that before very long there will be a change which will enable the children to come back to their homes. I feel that we can get as many as we wish to leave the country, but this scheme is not going to populate the Empire. If you do not get the Governments into this matter, to organise it and manage or direct it in every way, using voluntary effort wherever possible in the interest of the children, I have little faith in its success. I have been interested in this subject for many years. When we sent children to Canada I sent a commission there to discuss and consider what was being done. They were unanimous—and the Governments of this country and of Canada agreed—that, because of conditions overseas, the scheme was to come to an end and no more children were to go unless accompanied by their parents. I do not insist upon that, though I believe it is the best way, but I do insist that the Government cannot expect this Parliament to support them at all, if they do not see that everything is done by the Governments overseas to ensure that the children are cared for, have an opportunity of leading decent, good lives and are able to come back as soon as possible.

7.19 p.m.

Major Braithwaite: I should like to say how glad I am that this opportunity has been given to Parliament to consider the problem of evacuating children. I also want to say how grateful we are to the Under-Secretary for the vigour and courage with which he has tackled the enormous task that has been given to him. I was a little alarmed at the size of his Advisory Council, but I assume that he has taken the best advice available on a very big problem. I should have thought, in war-time, a smaller committee would be advisable, because all our war effort should be as concentrated as possible. We do not want to have more people doing a job than are absolutely necessary, in order to get a quick decision. On the other hand, I believe


the hon. Gentleman has got together a good Council which will do useful service and give him sound advice.
We are discussing this problem at the most serious time in our national affairs. It anybody has illusions about what is to happen, they might as well dispel them at once. We are the front-line trench of civilisation to-day. We are the most vulnerable country in the world. We have the most concentrated population in the smallest island. We are face to face with the largest war machine that has ever been created, and in some parts we are only 20 miles away from an air force which some say numbers about 12,000. We have to use this island as the frontline trench. What is the best way of making it a substantial front line? When we were fighting in France in the last war we would not have brought the women and children into the trenches alongside us to fight. We would not even have brought the old or decrepit. We cleared the decks so that we could get down to business properly and quickly. That is why the problem of evacuating children from this country is of paramount importance. I regard it as one of the greatest military objectives that we can have in order to put our house in order. It does not concern only the soldiers and the military people, but the people who are working in the factories. They want to know when they are at their lathes, in the coal mines and on the munition plants, that their loved ones at home will be reasonably safe.
I was disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's broadcast the other day. I do not know whether he was having a tip at me when he said it was dangerous to talk about evacuating large numbers of people and that it was stupid to discuss it on those lines. We shall, however, have to do this before the war is over. Whether it is done now or later is a matter for the Government to decide. When the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon passed it over as a small matter I disagreed with him. We have to face the fact that women and children and non-effectives in this country must not be allowed to hinder the war effort in any way. The Minister of Shipping has no right to send one ship from these shores unless it has its quota of women and children aboard. This is a policy not of funk, but of getting ready to beat Hitler at his own game. We can-

not do that unless we have some real vision. We live in strange times and we have to think on different lines from those of pre-war days. The policy that would do when we were approaching the war will not do now. I disagree with my hon. Friend who agitates sending these ships lighted up. Any airmen or soldiers who would deliberately machine-gun women and children on the island of Guernsey or when they were refugees in France are not to be trusted on the high seas. We must, therefore, provide every defence for the children.
I want to say something which I hope will go to the United States of America. I have spent a considerable time looking at this matter from the American point of view. With our island in the front-line trench of civilisation the United States have a responsibility to us, and they fully realise it. It is paramountly obvious to me that if they are our friends—and I believe they are—and if they desire to see this country retain those elements of strength that will preserve civilisation, they must immediately come to our rescue by sending their fleet and their boats to take our women and children away from this island.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: We are not in want of rescue.

Major Braithwaite: It is in the best interests of this country that America and ourselves should work closely together in this matter. Any attempt to belittle what America is doing or to disunite us is not good for this country or anybody else. We want to have the maximum help from that great continent. I say to them that it is their bounden duty to send their ships and boats to take our people across to their country.
I am sorry that the Government were so tardy about this question up to the time when my hon. Friend undertook this duty. It always seems that before taking any action the Government have to run up against the inevitable that has been standing out a mile. We have to do everything in such an infernal rush because things were not planned when there was time. If it was clear that evacuation from dangerous areas had to be carried out, it ought to have been taken in hand in time instead of being brought on at this stage and plans made in a rush. We are indebted to the hon.


Gentleman in charge of this Department for the speed with which he has gone to work. The rapidity with which he and his committee and the staff have got together and the way in which they are dealing with correspondence are a credit to the Civil Service and the Department, and we owe the Under-Secretary a debt of gratitude. Everyone would like to express our great appreciation of the generosity and affection which have been shown to this country by the Dominions and by the United States of America. The hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he had no offers from America, but he knows well that the homes are there by the thousand when he is ready to deal with them. There are some difficulties about restrictions on emigration, but I believe they will be swept out of the way.
When we are considering this matter we should look at the possibilities. There are 150,000,000 people in the United States as against 14,000,000 in Canada. We have the opportunity of getting our children into homes which, I can say from personal experience, will look after our children. America is a children's country. They think and work for their children in a way that sets an example to the world, and they will give affection, consideration and help to our children which every parent will realise if any of their children go there. The possibilities of this scheme are tremendous. The only limitation to it is shipping. We have not only our own Mercantile Marine, but the Dutch Mercantile Marine, large sections of the Danish fleet, a lot of the Norwegian fleet and a substantial number of the French. Surely, with all these ships we ought to deal with this matter in bigger figures than the Minister has talked of. I hope that the Government will see that every parent whose children are now in a reception area will have the opportunity of seeing them before they go away. I understand that a large number of the children under consideration are in reception areas and they are a long way from their parents. I should like the Board to consider the question of setting up care committees in each of the Dominions to which the children may go. I feel sure—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of  The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS

AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL [Lords]. (By Order).

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[SIR CYRIL ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question.
That a sum, not exceeding £38,830, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

7.31 p.m.

Major Braithwaite: When Mr. Speaker took his place in the Chair just now, I was expressing the hope that care committees would be set up in the different places to which the children are going, and I feel that such committees will be welcomed by the Dominions and by the United States, and may be able to help to co-ordinate the efforts there for the good of the children. Those who regard this scheme as a policy of defeatism are quite wrong, and those who feel that America may come to regard it as her full contribution to the war are also wrong, in my opinion. I am satisfied that the children who are going to American homes, whose mothers and fathers are over here fighting for our country, will bring the vivid realities of what we are doing here more closely home to the American people and bring their war effort closer to us. We shall


also, through this scheme, build up strong ties of friendship which will be invaluable in the future. We shall bring to our own island here a knowledge of life overseas which should be of great value in our Empire-building after the war is over.
Finally, I think this scheme will make for the better carrying out of our military duties here, in that it will relieve men and women here of anxiety about their children. I can only speak from personal experience, but, as I told the House on the last occasion when this subject was discussed, my own children are with relatives in the United States, and we feel comparatively free to go about our war work and have been able to tackle things in a way which would not have been possible if we had had the feeling that danger might overtake the children at times when we might not be with them. I join with my hon. Friend opposite in wishing a happy time to all the children who go overseas, a time which, I hope, they will use to the best possible advantage. I hope they will go out as little ambassadors from this country, promoting good will and fellowship and making a substantial contribution to the feelings that others have for us. We can and we shall win this war if determination is shown. Therefore, do not let us tackle the problem on pettifogging lines. Let us deal with it broadly and in a big way, so that it may make the biggest contribution possible to our great war effort.

7.35 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite), who, I know, has given great thought to this question, that one of the great advantages of the scheme is the relief which it will bring to the minds of parents. I sometimes think that that aspect of the matter has not been sufficiently stressed; that we have thought of the scheme too much as for the benefit of the children and of the value they will be as ambassadors and representatives of our race in America. To my mind one of the great uses of the scheme is that it will keep up the vitality of the fighting Forces in this country by relieving the minds of the fighting men and fighting women of pressing anxiety about the safety of their children. In passing, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will give up the habit, which does not belong

to his generation, of always referring to "women and children." It is a phrase which sets every woman's teeth on edge. Let the women accompany their children if it is necessary for the welfare of the children, but if women are not needed for that purpose their place is here with their men, fighting in every way that is open to them.
If I agree in admiring the energy and enthusiasm which the Under-Secretary has put into his task, I am disappointed with the scale of the scheme and his apparent satisfaction with its scale. The sending of 20,000 children is a much smaller effort than I had hoped might be possible. He may say that that is the maximum number that is possible in view of the shipping services, but I wonder whether the shipping position has been explored in a sufficiently original spirit. He quite rightly deprecated our looking upon the evacuation of these children as though it were a repetition of the evacuation from Dunkirk. Of course, the whole circumstances are quite different. For one thing there is no reason for frantic haste. All the same, I should like to see the spirit of Dunkirk brought into the scheme in the sense that the Dunkirk effort was distinguished by the extraordinary scale of our improvisation. We did not wait until all the ships ordinarily used for evacuating soldiers could get to Dunkirk, but used everything that was to hand. Have all the possibilities of using our ships been inquired into? For example, there are ships which have brought cargo to this country which could take children back, even though in small numbers only. Why concentrate only on big ships to be used exclusively for large-scale evacuation?
I agree with one speaker who said that we ought not to despair of getting the United States to make a contribution by sending ships to this country for the evacuation. It would mean a considerable departure from their present policy, but they sent ships to evacuate their own citizens from Europe and they might be persuaded, consistently with their policy of friendly neutrality, to send ships to take our children over there. Another point to which I wish particularly to draw attention is the position of the parent who desires to send his children to Canada—especially to Canada, because it is in the case of Canada that the difficulty particularly arises—entirely


at his own expense. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he was against sending children in that way except under the limited scheme of sending schools as units, and that only because Canada had particularly asked for it. In that case they were making arrangements by which parents could pay for the sending of their children by passing a certain sum into their banks. That credit would be frozen, and there would be an adjustment at the end of the war.
I never have been satisfied with the reply given in this House as to why the plan could not be extended to other parents who want to send their children individually. I should be the last to urge that wealthy parents should have a preference that would crowd out poorer parents, if it is impossible to allow those arrangements on a big scale without taking up shipping space which is needed for the larger scheme, but I do not think this is the reason. A considerable number of parents have managed to send their children abroad, in most cases the mothers accompanying the children, because they have had friends in Canada who were ready to give the family hospitality. I have heard of many cases of people who have friends in Canada willing to take the children, and although they themselves could amply afford to pay the whole cost they were held back because they were not allowed to send funds to Canada, and because they would not let their children go there and live on the charity of their friends.
I know that the conventional answer is that it could not be allowed because of exchange difficulties, but I regard that answer as nothing but an excuse. It is obvious that the difficulty can be got over by the plan suggested for the schools, by frozen credits or by the method which I suggested the other day in a Parliamentary Question, the creation of a special trust fund so arranged that parents could pay whatever was considered the full cost—there might have to be an upward limit—of the maintenance of their children, their schooling, etc., in Canada. The money would be paid into the trust fund in this country until some arrangement could be made with the Canadian Government to advance money which could be repaid at the end of hostilities; or there might be some kind of barter arrangement. I am sure there is some way out

of the difficulty, and I do not believe that this is the difficulty which is stopping the Government.
Is the difficulty related to shipping? If so, does not what I have said also apply? Are there not ways in which families can make their own arrangements for getting their children into ships which are not taking part in the larger scheme? Is the difficulty shyness of approaching the Canadian Government on the subject? If so, there are ways of putting matters to a friendly Government, and especially to one which is so interested in the matter, without exactly asking favours. It is obvious that parents who do not want to be a burden upon the general scheme should be allowed to make their own arrangements. If you can send only 60,000 children—I think the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary were 48 plus 12—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): It is 42 plus 12.

Miss Rathbone: It is clear that that is only a minority of the children for whom application has been made. If the well-to-do parents can take themselves out of this scheme, why not let them do so? Why should people who want to send their children to particular friends in Canada, and are prepared to send them, be allowed to take up places in the general scheme which are badly needed for other children?. I cannot see the sense of that. The currency difficulty is an excuse which can be got over in the same way. If the difficulty is in regard to shipping, is the Under-Secretary sure that that cannot be got over too? I beg those who are concerned in this matter to go more fully into the question to find a way round.
Many people have written to me on this subject, and some of the letters have really touched me. They have put forward an extraordinarily strong case. One man, doing very important military work, said that he had managed to send his children to Canada because he had friends there on whose kindness he could rely. He said he did not like the idea that his children were going to be guests all the time, but that he had done it, and that it was extraordinary what a difference it had made to him. He had been able to give to his work a much freer mind now


that he thought his children were safe. I had another letter only this morning from a lady who began by saying that she had heard a week or two ago that her husband was missing and believed killed. She, too, wanted to send her children abroad. Why should she not be able to do so? Has she not suffered enough and given enough already? The difficulty which held her up was that of not wanting to be a burden on her relations in Canada. I beg the Government to give a little more consideration to this class of applicant.
I have only two very small points further to put before the Committee. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary some time ago whether he could assure me in his speech about the children of serving soldiers. There must be some very simple answer to the point, and I hope that the Government will be able to give me an answer. The last point is in regard to the principle of selection. I agree that it is most important that the right sort of children should be selected. I hope that priority of application will not give the right to come first. Preference should be given to the evacuated children, for two reasons. Parents who took advantage of the Government's evacuation scheme have, to a certain extent, a prior claim, because they have shown that they were willing to do something and did not merely ignore the warning which was given There is a more practical reason. If you want to be sure of excluding the wrong kind of child and to be sure that the children you select have not nasty habits of body or mind, or are not intolerably troublesome and likely to be a discredit to us in the Dominions, preference should be given to the evacuated children. If the selection is made wisely, this will be a very valuable scheme, but I urge the Government to enlarge it and to approach the matter in a more generous and exploratory spirit, if possible.

7.48 p.m.

Sir Annesley Somerville: My hon. Friend who introduced this Debate is to be congratulated upon the expedition and efficiency with which he has brought this scheme into operation. It is a scheme full of great possibilities. There are some points which one might criticise. For instance, I find in the report that the Advisory Council was to consist of representatives who had had

experience in the care and education of children. Nevertheless, those who have had most experience in that direction are conspicuous by their absence from the Advisory Council. I refer to the teachers. There are members of local education authorities—

Mr. Ede: Mrs. Elsie Parker, ex-President of the National Union of Teachers, is a representative of the teachers. There is also a representative of the Head Mistresses' Association.

Sir A. Somerville: Possibly the Advisory Council may be strengthened to some degree. There are two points I would put, in particular. One is in regard to schools going as units. There are invitations from certain Canadian schools to schools of this side to go as units, and I hope that those invitations will be widely accepted, so far as is possible. I have had some experience of Canadian schooling. It is wide and spacious. They live a spacious life. Contact between English schools going as units and Canadian schools would be all to the good. For instance, in Canadian schools there is an assembly every morning. There these great schools assemble, perhaps some thousands of pupils and teachers. On the platform are the Union Jack and the Canadian flag crossed, and the schools sing the Canadian and the National Anthems. Sometimes there is a short address before school begins. That is how school begins every morning in the Canadian schools. The results of intercourse between an English school and a Canadian school working together would be of immense value to both countries. It has been said that allowing the schools to go as units might savour of panic. It savours no more of panic than evacuating schools as units from one part of this country to another. A condition might be made that no teacher of military age should go with these schools. With those conditions I hope it will be possible to accept the Canadian invitation to the fullest extent. I understand that there are shipping difficulties, but I hope those may be overcome. There is an invitation from Canadian universities to members of the universities of this country to send their children over, the Canadian universities being responsible for the children. I hope that that invitation will be accepted and aided.
Another point that I would like to mention is this. In the past we have seen many schemes of settlement overseas go wrong because of the lack of suitable after-care. This scheme, which is excellently organised and well planned this side, seems to fail in one respect, and that is in suitable after-care. A great deal depends on proper after-care in working such a scheme. I hope that that point will be fully borne in mind, and that arrangements will be made, both with the Dominions and with our friends in the United States, who have made such a generous offer, to see that the after-care of the children we send is efficient and continuous for a considerable time. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend that financial arrangements in the shape of the sterling pool are being set on foot in order to enable schools that are invited, or individuals, to take advantage of the offer from Canada. The establishment of that pool will be of advantage to us.
I would only add that the possibilities of this scheme are great and promising. In the future it may well be that this scheme will develop to such a great and fruitful extent that the brotherhood of high ideals and love of freedom will have brought closer together the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I appeal to my hon. Friend and this Committee to go forward in hope and courage. I believe that this scheme will be of the greatest value to this country and to the Commonwealth of Nations.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I am sure that the Under-Secretary for Dominion Affairs will be very gratified by the reception that has been accorded to the scheme to-day. However, in the chorus of praise and approval there has been a certain amount of what I think has been to some extent carping criticism. Generally the scheme has met with the unqualified approval of all Members of the Committee. It is to be regretted that this scheme was not conceived of many months ago. Not only should we have a large number of our children in the safety and security of the Dominions, but the scheme would have been working under conditions much more favourable, and the whole operation might be very much larger than it can now possibly be. Despite that fact, it is

good to think that even now, at this late hour, something is to be done, and I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister on the organisation which has been created in so rapid a time and for its enterprise and energy. The Under-Secretary must be congratulated on having cut away a good deal of what might have been dead wood in a departmental organisation. The scheme demonstrates that it is possible, even during war-time, not only to make rapid decisions, but to take effective action at once.
There are two or three points I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. Member who is to reply, and I would like him to deal with them. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) made an admirable suggestion that the parents of the children who are going to be sent overseas should be afforded an opportunity of seeing their children before they go. That is only humane. It would, however, be unwise if these children were brought back to their homes, for it would be bringing them into areas of danger. It would be equally unwise for the parents to go and see the children off at the port of embarkation. That would be disastrous. It would be upsetting to the children and might occasion great difficulty to those who have charge of the children. Therefore, I hope arrangements can be made for parents of all children who are going overseas to see their children where they are at the present time. The question of finance may come in, and it would be very undesirable that any parents should not be able to see their children because they had not the necessary money to pay the railway fares. I hope it will be arranged that the parents of those children going overseas shall receive free travelling vouchers to the places where their children are at the present time.
There is another point which is more for the future than for the present, but I have been asked questions about it. Some parents have said, "What guarantee shall we have of the return of the children as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities? We may not be able to pay their railway and boat fares to come back." I pointed out to them that obviously it would be the responsibility of the State and the Government, having taken their children over, to bring them back to the homes of the parents at


the earliest possible time. It might be valuable if the reassurance were given that the children would be brought back without the parents having to incur any additional expense.
Criticism has been made in this Committee with regard to the size of the scheme. We all agree that it would be much more desirable if, instead of sending 7,000 children a month, we could send 70,000. However, gathering from what the Minister has said, the Department has been so organised that, on the basis of the scheme laid down, it can deal with an unknown quantity of children, with the proviso, of course, that there are in the Dominions and the United States of America the offers of hospitality and suitable homes for the children to go to. The question of the suitability of the homes is obviously one which this Committee cannot debate, but there are two points which should be borne in mind. We know not how long this conflict will go on. Not only are we unaware of the bitter form it may take in this country, but also of its length, although we are determined, that, long or short, it will be carried on until victory has been won. But these children may be away for some considerable time. Although they leave here as school children, they may before they return reach an age at which they would normally go to work. That will create big problems. First, there is the question of the age at which they should go to work. Some may prefer to start work at the age of 14, although in this country their parents would, perhaps, keep them at school until they were 17 or 18. Then there is the question of a definite supervision of the character of the work in which they will be engaged. Organisations should be set up in Canada for that purpose, and parents afforded the opportunity of expressing their views as to the kind of employment that they would like their children to undertake.
It is good that there should be a cross-section of the child community of this land sent abroad. That means that there will be a fair representation of the standard of intelligence, and, we hope, an excellent representation of the standard of health of the children of this country. Those children will take with them some of the traditions of the Old Country, and enrich the Dominions as the early settlers did. It is quite conceivable that these young

people, going out of the strife and turmoil of these unhappy days, will take a new vision and new hope even to the Dominions, and that as a result of the contact of these young lives with the people of our Dominions there will be—if such a thing is possible—a closer welding of the common interests of the people of this country and of the Dominions.
I was extremely pleased to note that such adequate provision was being made for people to go over with the children. That means that every child will be able to secure individual supervision on board ship. It is essential that in the choice of these helpers there must be a mixture of the mother and the teacher. The teacher may be especially valuable in preparing the children for the life of the new Dominion, but not so useful if the child is suffering from sea-sickness or other illness or even home-sickness. On every ship there should be at least one person who has a knowledge—if possible, a personal knowledge—of the Dominion to which the ship is going. Such a person will be able to instruct the children on the nature of the country and the story of its growth, so that the children may perhaps have a greater knowledge of that Dominion when they arrive than some of the people living there.
People are saying that to send children away is an act of defeatism. It is nothing of the sort. It is a wise policy that we should have adopted long ago. If we could get rid of all the aged people, the sick people and the young people, we could defend this country much better. We want to free men and women from anxiety as to what is to happen to their children. Obviously, it will be a great trial to them to part with their children, but they will undergo that in order to ensure the safety of those children. By sacrificing themselves in that way they become free to undertake work which at present they cannot do. I am sure that those children who go to the Dominions will in days to come thank their parents and those who have initiated the scheme. We have been told that we have to do this in order to make the children safe. That is true, but we want to do more than make the children safe. We want to make this country safe for the future; safe against invasion; safe so that in the days to come, in the very near future, we hope, these children may come back from the lands they have visited to their own


homeland, to be received with joy after an experience that will have enriched them and will have enriched the Empire as a whole.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Hannah: Despite the rather unpleasant associations of the word "evacuation," I look at this scheme with great enthusiasm. I believe it may help us, materially, to solve one of our most difficult Imperial problems. I should like to say a few words from the point of view of one who has lived long years across the seas, both in the Dominions and in the United States. We stand between two worlds, the Old and the New. On one side we have Europe; on the other, the new Dominions, scattered throughout the world. We have two positions among the nations of the world. We are, and must remain, a European Power; but, far more important, we are a member of a sisterhood of free nations scattered over the world. It is inevitable that our own education should be mainly European. Europe is near; the Dominions are, geographically, far off. We have to teach our children, in the first place, something of the European background, which is, after all, the background of this country. We cannot help asking: Can any good thing come out of post-war Europe? Earnestly, we hope that it can; but, I think, nothing can compare with the enormous benefits which we may gain from our Dominions. Some of the Dominions, politically, tend towards the Right, that is, Canada and South Africa; others, rather towards the Left politically, are Australia and New Zealand. That is unimportant, comparatively speaking. They all mean very much the same. Everywhere there is that splendid opportunity open to all, the common school where the children of rich and poor sit together on the same benches, the buoyant optimism and the abounding hope of what the New World means for humanity.
I agree most emphatically with those Members who have emphasised the point that our children must be taught something about the Dominions to which they are going. They must be adaptable and able to take their part in a social and economic atmosphere completely different from ours. Education in the Dominions is naturally quite different from ours in very many ways. Some years ago when

I was a professor in the Middle West, I happened to find that of my class of 21, all college graduates, only one had ever heard of Monte Carlo. I do not say for a moment that they were any the worse off for that. Very likely it was all the better, but it seemed to illustrate in a very remarkable way the completely different background of New World children from that of people in any part of Europe. These boys and girls who are going to find new homes, if temporarily, in the New World must be told before they embark that they have to be adaptable and that they have to live as Canadians, South Africans, Australians or New Zealanders, for the time being. Above everything else, I hope that they will leave behind any idea that the English are superior. I hope that we have got rid for ever of the old, rather common Victorian view—soiled goods for the Colonies.
I do not think that anybody has emphasised the fact that these children will inevitably help in the homes to which they are to be sent. They will be expected, and I hope that they will be extremely willing, to help to get in the crops, to mow the lawn, to black their own boots, to make their own beds and to do their share of housework and those things, which, in practically every Dominion home, the guest who stays for more than a few days is expected to do. In that way our children can get an extremely valuable experience and I hope, considering the inevitable difficulty in most Dominions of getting in the harvest, that this will be something in which they will be extremely anxious to help. The picking of apples and the small fruits is ideal work for children, and I know from my own experience that there is often very great difficulty in the Dominions in getting that kind of work done. I do not think that it matters very much from what homes our children come, but they must realise that, in the New World, it makes very little difference. They will go to the same schools and have the same opportunity. Heredity is believed in very little indeed.
I can imagine no greater benefit to this country than that we should have a large number of citizens who have lived during the most formative period of their lives in the Dominions and have thoroughly got the Dominion point of view. It will


help us to do what we all realise to be extraordinarily desirable—to bind together the scattered Dominions of the King under whatever sky they may be. I think that this scheme, if properly used, and if the children are definitely told that they are going to new lands and not to a little new England, may be a colossal advantage to the children themselves, to the community, to our war effort and to the whole future of our work in the world. It is more than a hundred years ago since George Canning in this House said something about being compelled to bring in the New World to redress the balance of the Old. We are called upon to bring in the buoyant optimism of the New World to rebuild the ruins of Europe, and this scheme may make an extremely important contribution towards that end. But we must avoid sending out children who cannot look at things from any other point of view than that of the Old Country. They must not assume any kind of superiority because they come from this land. We need more and more to realise that we do not regard our children beyond the seas in the old way, but look for their advice and help, because we feel that in many ways they have a better way of life than our own. After all, it must be remembered that some of the Dominion statesmen are among the most learned in the whole Empire, and so I hope this scheme will be of enormous benefit, not merely temporarily, but for the ages.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: I would like to join in the expressions of gratitude of Members of this Committee for the generous spirit which has been shown by the Dominions in regard to this matter. I know that they are extremely anxious to help us, and will go very far indeed to help us, in taking more of our children. I happen to be connected very closely, perhaps more closely than most Members of this Committee, with one of the greatest industrial undertakings in the Dominion of Canada, and I have had plenty of evidence from there of the desire of individuals to help individual families in this country to send their children overseas in order to be taken good care of in their education and their general lives during the war. I believe that in the industrial areas in Canada they could easily take a hundred or two hundred

children of their associates from this country, and they join in the appeal which has already been made to the Minister and to the Government that some arrangement might be made in order to assist these people, who in such circumstances could send their children over, to contribute towards their maintenance. It is extremely difficult indeed to persuade parents in this country to send their children over to be entirely dependent upon the charity, good will and kindness of their friends in Canada. I know that the answer will probably be given—and it has been indicated already—that there are difficulties in the way of doing that. I hardly think that any shipping difficulty would be in the way, because the number who would avail themselves of the opportunity would not be so very great. But in any case they would still be entitled to come within the Government scheme and make their application in the ordinary way, so that the extra number who would be a tax on shipping would not be very large.
With regard to the exchange problem, we have been informed to-night that it is a difficulty which looms very large in the minds of the Government and still more in the minds of the Treasury. However stringent the question may be to-day, I hope that now that the Government have appointed a well-known Scotsman—Lord Catto—to be Financial Adviser to the Treasury the question will be reconsidered. Lord Catto is a man who is greatly respected and who knows the dollar question through and through, and I suggest that this matter should be seriously taken up by the Government in order to see whether the arrangements made in regard to schools cannot also be made with regard to individual families who desire to send their children to Canada.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buck-rose (Major Braithwaite) mentioned in the course of the Debate that his children were already in America. I know there are others, and I would like to know how they are getting over this financial difficulty. I know there are distinguished relatives of Members of this House, and even Members of the Government, who are sending, or proposing to send, their children to America, even with their mothers, or to Canada or some other Dominion. How are they getting over this financial difficulty, because others


who would like to do the same would be glad to know? I can hardly credit that these people are relying on the charity and good will of their friends for an indefinite period which may be for years. How can it be done if there is frozen credit here? Surely if our Canadian friends are prepared to advance money on the other side, and rely on credit of sterling which would only be met after the war, that cannot possibly injure the financial credit of this country during the war. In view of what has been said to-night, I would like the Minister to reconsider this matter.
I want to draw special attention to the question of the selection of the children, particularly in relation to the Principality. In the Principality there is at the moment a very active movement which was initiated from the other side of the Atlantic. Welsh communities in Canada and America have been in touch with Welsh people in Wales and are prepared to organise the reception of Welsh children in their countries. I know that this scheme might very well be worked in with the Government scheme, although I have no doubt it will be said that Welsh Dominion settlers can go to a reception committee in Canada, get into touch, and designate children to go from Wales into their Welsh families. But Wales is the only country in this island, with the exception of part of Scotland, which has a language of its own, and I want to draw the attention of the Government to this fact, that in America and Canada there are Welsh communities who preserve their language and have done so for the last 100 years. They have their Welsh churches and Welsh schools, their Eisteddfods, their national festivals and concerts, and it would be easy to establish contact with those communities in Canada so that the children from Wales who may be sent away might feel more at home there.
I want, also, to protest to the Minister against this constant neglect of the peculiar conditions which apply to Wales. I know the Minister has appointed an Executive Board and an Advisory Council, and my recollection is that he has two members from Wales on that Council and that there is a note with special reference to Welsh conditions. One of the members is a very well-known and distinguished educationist who certainly

knows the conditions in Wales. This is shown by the figures we have had this afternoon from the Minister. He said that a quota of 75 per cent. of children in England and Wales would be given to those who have been, and are being, educated in State-aided schools and the remaining 25 per cent. to those from other schools. But, on the other hand, in Scotland, the quota is 98 per cent., compared with this 75 per cent. May I point out the ridiculous position in which Wales is placed by coupling up with England? We ought to be, and would like to be, coupled with Scotland. From 90 to 95 per cent. of Welsh children do not go to private or public schools; they are educated in secondary schools and intermediate schools which are State-aided, and in selecting children it is quite wrong that you should allocate to Wales the same percentage as you do to England. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that in allocating the quota the proportion should be considerably altered so as to approximate to the position of Scotland.
We are informed by the Minister, and it has been stated in this Debate, that priority or selection is to be given to those children from vulnerable areas and also to those children who have been evacuated from vulnerable areas to reception areas. How does the Minister regard South Wales to-day? Is South Wales a vulnerable area? Children have been evacuated to South Wales, which has been regarded as a reception area, but I am not disclosing any secret—for it has been published daily in the Press—when I say that South Wales is to-day one of the most vulnerable areas in any part of the Kingdom. It will be a very serious thing for the country and the production of munitions unless the Government wake up to the fact that changes have taken place, and that South Wales, which was a reception area, is now one of the most vulnerable areas in the country. What sense is there in selecting children on the basis of some territorial arrangement in which one area is vulnerable and the other is not? There is no safe area in this island any more. A great deal has been said about the extent of this scheme. Of course, as far as it is disclosed, it is infinitesimal. It is so small that it will not do anything from the point of view of making this country a fortress. One hon. Member has referred to the figure of 7,000 children a


month going to the Dominions. I do not know from where the hon. Member gets that figure. Is there a Government scheme by which 7,000 children a month are to be evacuated to the Dominions? What I understood the Minister to say in his speech was that the Dominions as a whole had indicated their readiness to take 20,000 children. Is it a fact that at the moment no indication has come from the Dominions as a whole of any figure higher than 20,000?

Mr. Ede: Does the hon. Member mean 20,000 a month or 20,000 in all?

Mr. Evans: Am I right in saying that at the moment there is no prospect of the Dominions accepting more than 20,000?

Mr. Ede: I would prefer to deal with this matter in a connected statement. The hon. Member will realise that these matters are still under negotiation with the Dominions, and that the Dominions are sovereign states. We cannot send a shipload of children off to the Dominions as we might send them off to the Isle of Man. These negotiations with the Dominions are very delicate. We have had offers in a good spirit which we are trying to expand. If I gave a definite answer to-night which might appear to indicate some limit to our ambitions, it might not secure the end which the hon. Member and I both have of trying to get away as large a number as the Dominions are willing to take and as the ships will carry.

Mr. Evans: Then I am quite right in saying that at the moment negotiations are proceeding. The Dominions may express the wish and desire to have many more, but at the moment 20,000 is the number which they are prepared to take, and I should be glad if, in the course of his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary would break up that number into figures for the different Dominions. I should like to know how many will go to Canada, to Australia, and so on? I should like also to know whether the hon. Gentleman can give us the proportion of boys to girls in the applications that have been made. I understand that already applications have been received in respect of 42,000 from grant-aided schools and 12,000 from other schools.

Mr. Ede: On that point I shall not be able to satisfy the hon. Member. He will realise that the application forms were first in the hands of the local authorities on Saturday, 22nd June. The local authorities have had to get the application forms to the schools. The children have had to take them home. The parents have considered them, and the forms have been brought back. Where the parents have signed the form asking for the child to be accepted, a medical inspection has had to be arranged, and the forms have been then sent back from the school to the local education authority. To my knowledge of one great local education authority with which I am connected, a voluntary staff has been working night and day in order that these forms might be sent back as speedily as possible. It has not been possible up to the moment to make any exhaustive analysis of these forms. We have given the House the numbers, but in the circumstances it has not been administratively possible, with our own staff working to very late hours at night and the local authorities' staffs working night and day for 24 hours continuously, to do more than supply the Committee with bulk figures at the moment.

Mr. Evans: I was not making any complaint. The hon. Gentleman is unable to give the figures at the moment, but it would be interesting to know as soon as possible the number of boys and the number of girls who will be allowed to go. It seems to me to make a great deal of difference to the value of the contact with the Dominions. The Minister said that accompanying these children on the ships there will always be a doctor, a nurse and a chaplain.

Mr. Ede: There will be doctors, nurses and a chaplain on each ship.

Mr. Evans: It seems to me that one thing is important. If the majority of the children on a ship are boys and if those boys are between 10 and 16 years of age, I am sure that a teacher, or some person of that sort, who is used to teaching and discipline, should also be on board the ship.

Mr. Ede: In my experience as a teacher it is far more necessary to have somebody to discipline girls than to discipline boys.

Mr. Evans: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's superior knowledge in that respect. Another point I want to make is that I


very much doubt whether the age should be 16. I feel that it would be better if no child over, say, 12 or 14 years of age were sent to the Dominions. I want the Minister to give some sound reasons why children up to the age of 16, when they are in many instances about to earn their living, should be sent to the Dominions. I suggest that there should be reconsideration of the question of the age of the children. There is a good deal to be said in favour of limiting the age to 12 years. I do not look upon this scheme as a sign of defeatism, but I do say that it is on such a small scale and that with the two conditions laid down, firstly, the limitation of shipping space, and, secondly, the limitation of the absorption capacity of the Dominions, it can never be on a large scale unless there is a good deal more enthusiasm behind it. There should be a much greater effort to make the Dominions realise, by people who know something about them, how much help they could be in this direction. I regret to say that many people in this country who wish to go away favour sending youngish women with their children. I think that is evidence of some defeatist spirit. All young women with children between the ages of 5 and 16 should remain and do some work, and I hope the Government will discourage at all times sending young mothers away with their children.

8.42 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I do not wish to follow the last speaker, except to say that in my experience I have come into contact with Welsh colonists, a very large number of them being in the Continent of South America. I should like to pay my respects to them for all that they did for us, and to say what good Colonists they were. I would remind the Committee of something about which they probably know already, namely, that when it came to a Welshman being asked to learn a second language, and subject himself to compulsory military service, that was too much for him. They appealed to the British Government, and the present Prime Minister saved the situation and transferred them to Canada. I have the highest regard for them as hosts and also as Colonists. I hate to strike what may appear to be a discordant note, but, after all, our Debates in this House are

intended to display the various differing views. One might suppose by the atmosphere in this Committee—and it is to our credit in many respects—that we were not within 30 minutes of many thousands of enemy bombers which would be in a position to blow this place into dust and rubble if it were not for our own defence forces.
I cannot help feeling that this Debate has taken place more in an atmosphere of peace which is quite unjustifiable. The difficulties which face the Ministers who have to deal with these problems are brushed on one side in the most cavalier way, although these difficulties are very real and very serious. I should not like anyone to say that the hon. and gallant Member, a naval man, ought to have known better, because he has travelled about the world, than to oppose the idea of transferring our children to the Dominions. That is not my view at all. On the contrary, I have always been staggered while I have been in the House that practically nothing has been done during the 16 years I have been here to add to the British population of the Dominions. But now, under the stress of war, do not let us forget what the impulse is at the present time. It is not an Imperial impulse, but an impulse of quite a different kind, and one which is quite understandable, although it is not quite so worthy. Do not let us make any mistake about that. I venture to say that it was not by such methods of sending people abroad to people the Dominions that this British Empire which is now in peril was built up.
Unfortunately, I was unable to be here for the whole of the afternoon, because I was attending to at least two other subjects which have for their prime object the preservation of this country and of the Empire and world, and not the avoidance of danger either for ourselves or for our women-folk or for our children. I cannot help saying also that a good many Members who have spoken this afternoon appear to be fathers without children and bachelors. If this Debate had been conducted by women and the mothers of families, we should find a very different note struck. During the last few days I have come into contact with a good many mothers who are debating with their hearts and with their husbands whether their children ought to be sent


away, and I do not find any of them viewing the prospect of having their children taken from them with anything but sorrow and dismay. Let us make no mistake about that.
I now wish to refer to something which seems to me to have been lightly brushed on one side. I have been a captain of a ship—many of us have been captains of ships—and for a man who commands a thousand men there is never a minute during his waking periods when he does not remember his grave responsibility for the safety of the people on board. Can anyone imagine a more precious cargo than, let us say, 2,000 or 3,000 children, which a passenger liner could quite easily accommodate? That ship, either in convoy or without convoy—it is not for me to say—is going to run incredible risks by mine, torpedo and aircraft, and also the perils of the sea. Is anyone going to suggest that that is an easy or nice prospect for the Government who have to face this thing? We should all be deeply distressed if such a precious cargo was to come to grief, and I am glad to see that the Government are pausing to remember that aspect, and realise the terrible dangers from the violence of the enemy as well as the dangers of the sea.
I have already hinted that in all these years that have passed nothing has been done to send children and families abroad, and that this does seem to me to be a queer time to be doing it. Some Members may say that what the hon. and gallant Admiral is saying has no bearing on the subject, but I consider that it has. We have a right to be interested, and perhaps even to inquire whether the enemy which we are going utterly to defeat and annihilate are evacuating their mothers and children. Some people may say there is nowhere for them to send their mothers and children, but that is not true; there is Sweden, for example. To the best of my knowledge, they are not evacuating them. Therefore I ask that people should realise what all this means. Someone has said these ships will all be lighted up, the children will be perfectly safe, and we should use some marvellous signal to say, "This is a cargo of children. Keep off." Someone else remarked that the people who are prepared to machine-gun refugees and have done the actions of which we are all aware are not likely to be deterred,

but rather to be attracted by the illumination. I would not for a second trust them in that respect. Further than that, I almost hesitate to remind hon. Members that we are at war and that an enemy is justified in saying, "You shall not evacuate your people. You are evacuating in order to make the problem easier for you. Our ambition is to make it as difficult as we can. You are in the position of a beleaguered island—an invested city." Everyone knows in history that when an invested city has said, "We wish to evacuate our women and children," the reply of the enemy in 99 cases out of 100 is, "No. Let your difficulties get greater. We are not going to help you."
We have to realise again that grave risks attend sending these people overseas. There is a moral aspect which I hope I shall be forgiven for mentioning, but I do not know that I want any forgiveness. What is a young man or woman going to say when in the years to come, when we have won the war, he is asked, "How did you come to be in New Zealand or South Africa?" "I was sent there because the Government, under pressure of the people and because they were nervous of what might happen to me and my small brothers and sisters, sent us here." I am sure no children of mine would like to have to say that. We are running the risk of implanting in the minds of the charming youngsters of whom we are all so fond an ineradicable memory of something that I wish we could avoid, and I feel confident that they will feel the same. I profoundly disagree with any large measure of evacuating the children of the country. I do not think that the small, carefully-thought-out, step-by-step scheme which has been put before us to-day is seriously wrong. On the contrary, some very good things will no doubt come from it. But anything in the nature of encouraging what I have permitted myself to call the refugee spirit is something to be most studiously avoided. Everyone must know—I have known at first hand—what has occurred on the Continent during the recent German advance, where it was clear that certain nations, if not all the crushed nations, were refugee nations, and every piece of evidence that I have been able to get together has shown me quite clearly, what I already knew from certain experiences of my own in other parts of the world,


that a refugee nation is a defeated nation, and therefore anything which tends to promote the restless spirit of the refugee is something that we British people should most carefully avoid.
I must refer to two things said by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite). He remarked what a wonderful place the United States is for children. I know it is. I also know that there is a very good apple grown in this country known as the American Mother. The reason it is called the American Mother is that it has only one Pip.

Major Braithwaite: I do not think that is the sort of thing that ought to be said in the Committee at this time. America has shown herself our friend and is willing to give us all the armaments she can, and to cast any aspersion in that direction is something that I bitterly resent.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: If my hon. and gallant Friend feels that I have hurt his feelings or said anything likely to upset the susceptibilities of friends in the United States, I am sorry, but none the less what I have said is a fact, and they must have very thin skins if they could not put up with that. My hon. and gallant Friend also said something to the effect that the United States might come to the rescue of this country. I permitted myself to say we were not in want of rescue.

Mr. G. Griffiths: If we are not in want of rescue, we might be glad of help.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I am of the opinion that we cannot do anything likely to get less help from the United States than to let them think that this country is either down or out or in want of rescue. I have a pride in the feeling that we are the keystone of the world and that we shall carry our own burdens and solve our own problems. While I should be the first to accept, and do accept, the suggestion of aid coming from the United States, I am certainly not going to cry craven. I apologise if I have hurt anyone's feelings, but I think we ought to be realists in the matter of the evacuation of children. I welcome the small, thoughtful, progressive scheme which the Government have provided, but I urge them with all the capacity at my command to see that they are not carried away on a wave of

national emotion and that the refugee spirit is not encouraged.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Parker: It is with some diffidence that I rise after the last speaker, being a bachelor. I strongly disagree with most of what he has said. It seems to me that it is not displaying the refugee spirit at all to take precautions to see that people who might be refugees are moved out of harm's way so that we can concentrate on the job we have in hand. In the early months of the war the Germans evacuated the Ruhr and the Rhineland, a very large territory, which they thought was within raiding distance from France, and they have only recently sent women and children back there. We have settled our various Dominions in different ways at different times. We have sent convicts to Australia, and I do not see any reason at all why the sending of children at the present juncture to the Dominions should not, in the long run, prove part of a policy of settling those areas. I do not agree fully with the Leader of the House that this is solely a war-time measure. I agree that it is important that it should be looked upon primarily as a war-time measure, but many war-time measures have results which last after the war and, if it happens that part of the result of this scheme will be the permanent settlement of children in the Dominions, it is only right and proper, in looking at the scheme now, that we should bear that point in mind.
With regard to the question of looking at it from the war-time point of view, it is important that we should regard it strategically. When we bear in mind the experience of France recently, it is important that we should consider a number of points which have not so far been examined. I notice that when General Mittelhauser in Syria decided that he would submit to the armistice agreed to by the French Government, he was governed largely by the fact that, in Syria, the officers of the French Army had their wives with them but the men had their wives and children in France, and they knew that if the Government of Syria did not keep in line with Petain's Government no money would be forth-coming for the wives and children in France. I do not suggest that in every case it is possible to move the wives and


children of people who are serving, but I suggest that where it is possible to do so, it would be wise. In cases where serving men want their wives and children sent overseas, every effort should be made to assist them, especially in the case of sailors. Other people who might be given assistance in sending their wives and children overseas are instructors who are going out to train airmen in Canada, people who are going out on specialist work in armament and aeroplane factories there, and Colonial officials and other people who live in places where the climate is suitable for European people.
We have a difficult position now with a number of French and other sailors in this country, whose wives and children are in countries in enemy occupation. None of us expects this country to be conquered even if it is invaded, but we have to provide against all eventualities, and if sailors have their families overseas it would be an advantage, in case we have to reconquer this country at a later stage. There are other groups of people, in addition to wives of serving men, who might be evacuated overseas. I think we ought to try to send non-combatants generally, in order to avoid demands on food that is wanted for other people. We ought to consider whether people cannot be assisted to go overseas if they happen to have friends or relations there who can put them up and look after them. Such people might be old folk, women with young children, invalids and so on. Free or assisted passages should be given to such people when shipping space is available. I agree that the Government scheme should have the first call on shipping. Then there is the case of widows with young children. The Australian and New Zealand Governments are anxious to have war widows with young children. Would it not be possible to encourage them to take, not only war widows, but other widows and children?

Mr. Ede: Did my hon. Friend say that the Australian Government wants war widows?

Mr. Parker: I think that a scheme was suggested on those lines in Australia. The New Zealand Government certainly has put forward such a scheme. Other groups of people who might be affected as soon as we have shipping space available are—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Gentleman is dealing with other groups who might be affected. That has nothing to do with this country; it is the concern of the Dominions over whom we have no control. The discussion of other groups, therefore, must be, out of order.

Mr. Parker: I should have thought it possible to put up a case to the Dominions and America to show why they should take certain groups of people.

The Deputy-Chairman: Not on this Vote. We are discussing arrangements which have already been made between His Majesty's Government and the Dominions.

Mr. Parker: The Government scheme definitely mentions Allied refugee children who, it suggests, should be given certain rights under these schemes.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but that refers to children, and I have heard the hon. Member talk about wives and mothers and others who are not children.

Mr. Parker: I hope that the refugee children will not be overlooked, and I hope also that the term "Allied refugee children" will not be interpreted too narrowly. I think anyone who is on our side in this war should be counted as an Ally. France has now gone out of the war, but we should treat the French children as Allies, and also treat the children of German and Austrian refugees as Allies for this purpose. I am certain that in the United States the people of German origin would be quite prepared to take the children of German refugees who have come here, so also would the Jewish community, Jewish children and the Czechs and Poles, their children. I understand that in this country at the present time there are 1,500 German children who are on the American quota, but have not yet gone to America, out of a total of 10,000 children of German and Austrian refugees in this country. We should give every assistance to all of them to go to America or elsewhere if people are willing to receive them there. It would be most unfortunate if we cut them out of the scheme. As far as food is concerned, they are eating food as much as anybody else; and that is apart from any question of treating them with common humanity.
Next, I should like to take the actual scheme of the Government and deal with it in some detail. One point which has been brought to my attention by a number of constituents concerns children of 14 to 15 who have left school. A number of people say that the present scheme is unfair because it gives an advantage to middle-class people who can afford to keep their children at school until 16 as against those who have to let them go to work at 14. The question has been put to me whether it would not be possible to allow children between 14 and 15 to go to the Dominions if people are willing to have them when they get there and provided they attend school there. In a particular case which was brought to my notice a boy who had been brought up in Australia came over to this country two years ago, and recently, because his father was unemployed, he had to leave school at 14. His parents are anxious to send him to Australia again if arrangements can be made and are willing that he should attend school there.
Then there is the question of orphanages. I strongly disapprove of much that has been said about orphanages in this Debate. It seems to me that if we are taking a cross-section of the population, then orphans are as much a part of that cross-section as anybody else, and I feel if there are orphanages in the Dominions or elsewhere which are willing to give hospitality to orphanage schools from this country, that they should be treated as if they were a school willing to receive a school from this country. With regard to individual orphans, I think that the Fairbridge scheme needs some consideration. I understand that the Fairbridge people are willing to take another 300 children straight away and fill their existing schools to capacity, and they would like a certain amount of assistance in setting up a school which would take another 300 children immediately.
Many local authorities in this country, including the London County Council, are keenly interested in this question of orphan children. Far more orphan children are in the care of local authorities than in private orphanages. In many cases those local authorities have evacuated those children to different parts

of the country. Why should they not be allowed to evacuate them overseas if they wish to do so? Why should they not be entitled to make a payment to keep the children overseas just as they pay for them to be kept here? I understand that in the past the Ministry of Health have always forbidden any payment to keep a child overseas. Would it not be possible at the present juncture to abolish that rule, because it seems unreasonable to stick to such a hard-and-fast regulation? Therefore, if local authorities want to send overseas under the scheme children who are in their care, they should be entitled to do so, if they are willing to make the necessary payment to maintain the children there. I hope that it will be possible to go into that point and to see whether anything can be done about it.
I wish to refer further to the refugee children. Will it not be possible not merely to deal with the sending of German and other children overseas, but to arrange with the representatives in this country of the French who support us, the Norwegians and other Allies, to take their children to suitable places overseas? For example, Dutch children might go to South Africa, which would, perhaps, ease some of the shipping space to Canada. Belgian children might go to some of the more salubrious highlands in the Congo, and French children might go to the healthy districts of Madagascar. That is a matter for discussion with the Governments concerned, and if they are interested they could be asked to cooperate in a scheme of that kind. In regard to German refugee children, I would observe that, under the Government scheme, Czechs definitely count as Allied refugees; but, I would ask, what is the position of Sudeten Germans? The Sudetens organised a settlement in Canada last summer. Are we to allow more of them to go out to Canada as Czechs? Why should they be treated differently from Austrians and Germans? There is also the question of the Basque children, who are not, technically speaking, Allies. I do not know what the position of Spain may be at any time, but it would be a disaster if we insisted upon sending back there all the Basque children. If people in Mexico and America are willing to have them, surely it would be better for them to go, even though they are not, technically, children of Allies.
I believe it will be possible to extend the Government scheme, and I hope we shall use all the means we can to carry the scheme into effect. My view is that, if we make our needs known, plenty of offers will come forward to provide for those needs. I do not think that we should bother because there has not yet been all the demand that may come in the future. I hope the question of how to get the shipping to take the children over will be thoroughly gone into. I believe that we shall be able to take far more even under the present Government scheme. If you are taking children to Australia and New Zealand, you need very good accommodation on the ships for such a long voyage, but the journey across the Atlantic to North America is quite short, and it should be possible to see that all cargo ships going out there take a certain quota of children.
I think we all agree that the Government have started very well with the job, and that we wish them luck.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I hope to occupy not more than a minute or two at this late stage of the Debate, but as one keenly interested in this subject I desire to congratulate the Under-Secretary and the Government upon the action which they have taken. I very much deprecate the speech which was delivered by an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who struck a note of defiance which is not justified in the present situation. This departure is intended not as a method of expanding the Empire or of creating some grand scheme, but as a temporary expedient, generally agreed to by the country, for taking a certain number of our children—a limited number, to begin with—and perhaps increasing the number subsequently, out of what may prove to be the most bitter and warlike battlefield which has ever been witnessed in the experience of nations, and which this country may ultimately become. The parents, of course, are fully apprised of this matter. To say that the perils of the sea, the submarine and the mine would prove to be a deterrent seems to me rather an extravagant statement in view of the fact that we know that during this war and in the last war it was quite easy for the Royal Navy, with the assistance perhaps of other nationalities, to convey

large numbers of troops and munitions across the infested seas of the world in perfect safety. I see no reason to believe that the children, conveyed in the great troopships, and properly protected, as they can be, would run more than an elementary risk.
The hon. and gallant Member rather took the line which I see was taken by Dr. Spencer Leeson, the headmaster of Winchester College, in a letter which he wrote to the "Times" last week. The doctor's views may be summed up under two or three heads. First, he disagreed with the notion that children between the ages of 14 and 16 should leave this country, because their services might be invaluable in the industrial field. That is to say, they should jeopardise life and limb in order to continue working, presumably in the factories or in the field. Then he contended that by this method of emigration overseas, we would break up the family life of this country, as in the evacuation at home. I should like to know what factor is greater than the public schools of this country in breaking up family life. The children go to a relic of the early ages; they are away from their families until the age of 17 or 18, after which they spend about three years at college. They have most successfully broken up all notions of family life in this country as I know it. For a man who is employed in breaking up family life, for very good reasons, to argue on those lines is somewhat extraordinary. Then he says—and the hon. and gallant Member did the same—that it is not right to encourage boys and girls to think of their own safety; that if we did so and they were evacuated, we would become a refugee nation in effect, or at all events in spirit, which is contrary to the spirit which has animated British people down the ages. Then he says that children of that age are surely not to be entrusted with what is, after all, their own future.
We are deeply indebted to the Dominions for the generous offer they have made. I believe that this effort can be amplified very substantially, that the movement will grow rapidly, and that provision will be made for much larger numbers. The Minister has not been able to advise us as to what is likely to ensue from the efforts in the United States, but it is very gratifying that the first lady in the great western republic should be employing her great ability and high stand-


ing in this task. I notice that Americans are asked to subscribe £1,250,000 for this purpose. That is a small sum for Americans, and I believe that it will be but the beginning of a great American effort to meet the liabilities which I am sure they all, from the President downwards, fully realise are theirs in connection with the effort to save modern democracy. The children certainly must be indiscriminately drawn from groups of normal children. I dislike the suggestion, which has been made by several Members, that we must be very discreet, in sending only the choicest specimens to the United States and the Dominions. I do not believe that other than normal children will be expected or desired.
With regard to the sterling question, I believe that large numbers of parents, non-combatants, and women with their children, would be only too glad to go to these countries, but are debarred by the difficulty of taking currency from this country. It should be possible for the Government to get rid of the currency difficulties. I have a wide knowledge of American family life. I have lived in America for considerable periods, have travelled from Florida to California, and have visited the different parts of the country. The family life of the United States is as near a parallel to our own family life as can be found, There is for the evacuees unquestionably a great adventure which cannot fail to benefit physically, mentally and socially the fortunate children who are able to participate in it. The United States are a great, thoughtful and vigorous, independent people. You certainly breathe a freer atmosphere there than is possible in this country. They have a country which is unspoiled by traditions of class worship, which is encouraged here, particularly in our public schools, and there is a greater sense of equality among all classes of citizens, and that is encouraged in the Government and throughout the scholastic organisations of the country. There is a much freer use by the general public of the mountains, streams, rivers, lakes and woods, and there are greater travel facilities than are available in this country. We used to believe that the sole ambition of the American was the gathering of the dollars. My recent experience of the States is that the education of the country is passing from dollar

worship to that of the highest form of culture generally. For that reason, I believe that our young evacuees under the scheme, and in the manner in which it is handled, will be likely in increasing numbers to form lifelong associations in the countries to which they go which will have not only an individual, but an invaluable national advantage.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: This is a question of very great importance. It is so big a venture that I did not want to express an opinion, but, having heard the explanation, I agree with what the Government are doing. No one objected to evacuees going from one part of this country to the other. We all expected that as something to be done in war time. In the early part of the war we agreed that it was far better to take the children away and give them a better chance of safety. Now that the whole of the country is practically one bombing area, the question arises of the best method of saving the children. An offer has come from Canada that they are prepared to provide homes for children of this land, and I agree that it is the right course to adopt to try to take the children away from these shores. We have to realise what happened in France. I believe that France has been broken largely because of what has happened to the women and children there. Realising the horrors that took place when the crowds were on the roads and the Germans were pursuing them, and they were beaten down by their tanks, and what might happen to the rest of the population, it caused the French to give in. I think that after hearing from returned soldiers of what they witnessed over there, one could readily see that the same kind of terror might easily happen here. If bombing raids take place and women and children are smashed and desolation comes, it will even break down men, and that is why I welcome any scheme which will take children from these shores.
I have a letter in my hand from a head teacher, who asks me to raise in Parliament the question of not giving too much publicity to the evacuation of children. She points out that when children are being removed the fact is broadcast, and everybody knows about it, and she asks me to draw the attention of the Government to the necessity of the utmost


secrecy when they are evacuating children from this country to another country. I believe the Government will see to that, but I draw attention to this point, so that every attempt will be made to prevent the enemy from knowing what is taking place. It is not a question of thinking that because vessels are loaded with children the enemy will not take advantage of the position. They will not scruple to do anything which will drive greater terror into the people of this land. I am backing this scheme for its immediate effect, although I realise that it may be far-reaching. Later on, when the war is over, I believe it will lead to a stronger bond between this country and the Dominions. It is merely for the purpose of protecting the innocent from dangers which may beset them that I support the scheme.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I did not intend to speak to-night, and I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but candidly I have been disgusted with the statements which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). If there is anything that will "get the backs up" of American women, it is a speech such as he has just made, and I protest, as a Member of this House, against some of his statements. When he said American women were "one-pip" women, that is a disgusting thing for a man of the education which he possesses to say in this House. We require all the help we can get from all democracies to win this conflict, and we shall not get it if we have men in the Committee, who have been in the Service and on the sea, making such statements as he made to-night. He said also that American children were the bosses of their parents. I do not think they are any more the bosses of their parents than are British children. In fact, I think American children are more akin to British children, with the exception of our own Empire, than any other children in the world. I do not know where the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets the idea that bachelors or spinsters know nothing about children because they have not had any themselves. I want to put it on record that I protest against such an idea.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education and

the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to see that in sending the first batch of children out of the country they will not confine it to one particular part of the British Isles. I do not want them to take all London youngsters, or all Yorkshire or Lancashire youngsters. I think it would be in the interests of the whole country if the first batch could be spread over the entire country, so that everybody would feel that his part of the country was having a share in the scheme. I have been knocking about among miners' wives and miners this week-end, and I know that, although they may feel the wrench for a few months, it may be for a couple of years, or even more, the attitude they take up is that they would rather not see their children for three years and then have them come back again than keep them and perhaps never see them again. We have to face the fact that many of these boys and girls, unless they do get away, will not be with us in the future. I shall give my full support to this scheme, which I hope will be spread all over the country as far as possible. In conclusion, I want to say again that I feel that for the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, who has been at sea for years, to have made the statement which he did make against the American race is a disgrace as far as the British House of Commons is concerned.

9.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs can feel reasonably satisfied with the reception which his scheme has had to-day. Had he received nothing but unstinted praise, he could at least have been sure of this, that the scheme was beyond the comprehension of the Committee. Inasmuch as the scheme has received, except for three speeches, a tempered criticism and on the whole a favourable reception, I think my hon. Friend can feel that he has got as near success as mere humanity can in these difficult times. I was very interested to find that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) wound up his speech by giving his blessing to what he called this small, thoughtful and progressive scheme, and that, although he attacked the scheme fairly liberally during the whole of his remarks, somewhat consoled me for the description applied to it


by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who called it trivial, valueless and a disappointment. We do not put this scheme forward at the moment as a big scheme, but we are certain that it is a scheme that is as large as we can make it at the moment, and if the Dominions and the United States of America will afford us the opportunities, we can make it as large as their generosity will allow us. [Interruption.] The problems of shipping are being sympathetically handled by the Ministry of Shipping. We have not been refused anything for which we have asked, and I am sure that, while military necessities have to come first, we have the active support of the Minister of Shipping and his Department.

Mr. Lindsay: Does that mean that it is not one of the limiting points?

Mr. Ede: Clearly, the amount of shipping must be a limiting factor. I repeat what I have said. We have not asked for anything and been refused. The hon. Member knows only too well the difficulties which arise in collecting returns. The local authorities have had eight or nine days in which to canvass the school population of this country, and the figure the Minister gave, to-night, represents the first week's return. In answer to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans), at an earlier stage, I described what I knew was happening in a great local education authority's office, where 12 teachers, who have volunteered, are working after school hours, by day and night getting these forms tabulated as they are returned. That it should be necessary to put in 24 hours, working day and night in relays, to do this indicates the kind of difficulty confronting the Minister in obtaining a return at this stage which could be given with any finality. The figure he gave of 42,000, for scheme A, and 12,000, for scheme B represents the first week's return. It may be of interest to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told me that the applications received by the Scottish Department up to date, total 14,750. Again, that is for the first week's return.

Mr. Lindsay: That is in addition.

Mr. Ede: Yes, that is in addition. The hon. Member knows better than anyone else how careful one has to be not to impinge on Scottish administration. He, as a Scottish Member, was appointed to govern education in England, but one of the advantages of the new Government is that for education, England has at last Home Rule. I would say to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) that the organisation which is represented on our Advisory Council is not the organisation with which Miss Mary Allen is connected. If that organisation with which she was previously connected has been absorbed—and I am not sure on that point—it certainly has not absorbed her.

Miss Cazalet: I do know as a fact, that that organisation is no longer affiliated to the Women's Voluntary Service.

Mr. Ede: I hope that will completely satisfy my hon. Friend. We were asked to explain the proportions of 75 per cent. and 25 per cent. for England and Wales. Those were based on the fact that of the 6,500,000 children of the proper ages in schools in England and Wales, approximately 5,000,000 are in grant-aided schools and 1,500,000 are in non-grant-aided schools. The percentages therefore are not very disproportionate.

Mr. O. Evans: What about Wales?

Mr. Ede: I have not got the figures separately, but I have no doubt that those responsible for selecting the various categories of children will bear the hon. Member's remark in mind. I will undertake that their attention shall be brought to his estimate of the proportion in Wales, and we will endeavour to get it checked. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell also asked about the position of children for whom the local authorities are responsible. The point was also made by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker). I do not think it is likely that many children in approved schools will be selected, because the Dominions have made it quite clear that they do not want problem children. One might have some difficulty in persuading them that a child in an approved school was other than a problem child. There may be cases in which that would not be true, but I think they would want a good deal of convincing. Apart from that, all the children for


whom local authorities are responsible, either by adoption or in any other way, will be eligible to come into the scheme on an individual basis.
Our scheme is one for individual children and not for groups or institutions of children. I think the remark of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) answered the question put by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, with regard to the date on which the children will sail. Clearly, it would be very wrong in the present state of the world to advertise the date or the place or the time, or even the destination, of any ships which may sail under the scheme. While preparations are in progress on this side, we are in constant communication with our friends in the Dominions to get the scheme well started on the other side.

Mr. Ammon: What I said was that it should be done before the weather got too bad. I did not ask that it should be published.

Mr. Ede: I am a very bad sailor and I know that you can get the most disastrous weather on any day in the year. I have been terribly seasick, in June, crossing from Southsea to Ryde. We realise that time is of the very essence of the question and I think it ought to be said, in view of some of the remarks of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)—who is unlikely to favour us with her presence while any reply is being made to her—that the moment there was an inkling of an invitation from the Dominions for these children, my hon. Friend got to work. The fact that we are as far advanced as we are, is due to the fact that a Departmental Committee commenced working at once and, as we sat from day to day, my hon. Friend was able to report on his negotiations with the various High Commissioners. At no stage have we allowed anything that could be avoided to cause the loss of a single day.

Major Milner: My hon. Friend has spoken of individual children. Does that mean that if 200 children are selected from an area, it would not be possible for them to go together?

Mr. Ede: No. The selection will be by individuals. We shall not say, "We have 199 from Leeds and we will have

another to make a round 200." Clearly, if we had 200 children from Leeds, there would be considerable advantages on the journey, and quite possibly on the other side of the water, in having such a group, but they will not be taken as a group. Each of the 200 will be selected individually because their individual claims are such as to entitle them to inclusion in the scheme. There is another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell which I should make clear. There will be no financial contacts between the home in this country and the home in the Dominions. The money collected from the parents in this country will be paid into a central fund and the amount received in the Dominions by anyone there, will not depend upon the amount paid by a parent in this country. I know from the interest which my hon. Friend took in the English evacuation scheme that he will realise the fundamental importance of preserving that principle.

Mr. Mander: Where does that fund go to?

Mr. Ede: We shall give these children a free passage across and will pay their passage hack to their homes at the end. The average payment now being made by parents is 2s. gd. a week for the children evacuated under the English scheme. For the children from the grant-aided schools we are applying the same scale, and I see no reason for thinking that the average will be higher for the overseas scheme. I do not think that, either immediately or in the near future, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find the surplus in this fund of great help towards meeting the expenses of the war. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) made a speech which, I am bound to say, I found difficulty in following. I want to make plain that I am not speaking from this Box with my tongue in my cheek. I am only advocating policies in which I believe. If a policy were forced on my Department which I could not advocate in the House I would not come here to advocate it. I am not sure from the hon. Member's references to compulsion whether he is in favour of it or not.

Mr. Lindsay: Not in the least. I never said so.

Mr. Ede: This is not a compulsory scheme. It is a scheme that is being


offered to the parents. They must consider it, and if they avail themselves of it, I, personally, think they will be wise. The responsibility, however, is theirs and they must weigh up the risks of this scheme and the risks of remaining at home. The two represent two separate gambles, and they must make up their minds which of the two they are inclined to take.

Colonel Wedgwood: The State is quite indifferent?

Mr. Ede: This democratic State believes that this is one of the things about which the individual citizen has to make up his mind for himself.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does my hon. Friend mean that the State has no interest in this scheme, from the point of view of the prosecution of the war?

Mr. Ede: It has every interest from that point of view, but I know from my personal contact in the last nine months with parents in the original evacuation scheme, that there are some parents who will work and fight better when their children are away from home and that there are other parents who will work and fight better because their children are at home. It is one of the illogicalities of human nature that that is so. Even in my own house, where we are usually reasonably united, my wife and I take entirely opposite views on this question. My wife says, "If my home and family are to be blown up, I want to be blown up with them." I take the view, having seen some blowing up in the last war, that if there is any blowing up to be done I hope that mercifully I may not be there at the precise moment when it takes place. We believe there are some people who will be better citizens and better warriors if they accept this offer, and it is open to them, but we are not prepared to apply compulsion to make people accept it.

Mr. Lindsay: There is no need for that.

Mr. Ede: I was not answering the hon. Member but the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme who, although he was, prior to the war, probably the greatest anarchist in the country, has now, I think, developed a passion for cumpulsion.

Colonel Wedgwood: I always was against compulsion and I hope I am; but I was asking my hon. Friend whether he thought that the only question to be put before the parents was "Do you think it safer to send your children away or safer to keep them here?" I say that is not the only question to be put before the parents. There is the question of whether it is easier to conduct this war without our having to feed the children and without having them dependent upon their parents, and so the State has a direct interest in getting parents to accept evacuation.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. and gallant Friend has almost stated my case, and then drawn the wrong conclusion. I said there are some people who will work and fight better when their children are with them, and some who will work and fight better when the children are away—

Colonel Wedgwood: But they will eat more if they are here.

Mr. Ede: —and I think that in this country we are bound to leave it at that stage. What I say is that, if I had to make the choice for children of my own, I would evacuate them under this scheme; but I am quite sure of this, Mat in my family you would not get the signatures of both parents to it.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: Who would decide?

Mr. Ede: The signatures of both parents have to be obtained, and this is one of the occasions on which there is absolute equality between the two heads of the household.

Mr. Beaumont: And the wife would win.

Mr. Ede: In my case. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock also expressed himself in favour of the proposal for "marrying" the preparatory schools, where suitable arrangements can be made. My hon. Friend explained the extent to which the Government can allow such an arrangement. Of course, any large evacuation of children from preparatory schools would probably so cut into the shipping space that difficulties might arise. Generally, on the question of evacuating schools or institutions, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, the Dominions themselves have expressed


the strongest preference for the evacuation of individual children into individual family homes in the Dominions, and both from the point of view of the child here and in the Dominions I think it is a sound and healthy policy; and, further, if children from institutions are put forward for evacuation the probability is that when they get to the other side they will be billeted with private families.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) and some other Members have raised the question of the supervision on the other side. We recognise that we have a heavy responsibility in that matter and we do not shirk it, but we must remember that we are dealing with self-governing States who have made an offer. I certainly shall not do what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested—attempt to exercise any supervision over the educational system of the Dominions. He said that I was to see that proper educational facilities were provided in the Dominions. We have the assurance from the Dominions that there shall be available for these children the same education that is available for their own. In the great majority of cases that will probably mean, especially towards the end of the school career and for elementary school children, something more extended than is at present available for them in this country.
We intend—and negotiations are going on from hour to hour—to have available in the Dominions, in conjunction with and under the control of the Dominion Governments, a scheme for supervising these children and keeping in contact with them in their homes that shall be an assurance to their parents, to this House and to all other people who are interested in them. We recognise that it is essential that there shall be, not merely a body of people to meet the children on arrival, but daily contact with each child that shall make him feel that the people in this country still have memories of him and still hope that he is coming back to them, while they are watching his interests all the time that he is in the Dominions.

Mr. Lindsay: Could not the hon. Gentleman enlarge upon that? He spoke of a scheme.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that we started our Departmental Committee before the offers were really firm. We have been building up this organisation all along. We are in touch with the Dominions. They are self-governing countries. I must ask the Committee to realise that we are not dealing with the Isle of Wight but with States which are as much Sovereign States as is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Unless we are prepared to recognise that status and to accept the offer of the Dominions in the spirit in which it has been tendered, by States of equal power with ourselves, we may land ourselves into very serious difficulties. We have, from the first, endeavoured to make the Dominions understand that, in this matter we recognise them as hosts. One of our poets said of the Dominions:
Daughters are we in our mother's house,
But mistress in our own.
Nevertheless, the Dominions are no longer daughters; or, at any rate, they are daughters so grown-up as to be entitled to talk to their mother on equal terms. We shall endeavour to preserve that status in all our relationships.
I was disappointed to hear the noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth refer continually to these self-governing States as Colonies. I suppose she can never get over her Virginian associations, and has not yet heard that George III is really dead. I am sure that I carry the whole Committee with me when I say that we welcomed the intervention, with a maiden speech, of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Woolley). He used a phrase which, I hope, will be one of the distinguishing features of this scheme: "the ambassadorial value of the child." If we can send to the Dominions and the United States a real cross-section of our population they will be the very best ambassadors we can send, in assuring the peoples of those countries that this country still remains the home of a decent standard of life and that the ideals for which we have stood in the past, are worthily represented in the sturdy youths that we shall be sending to them.

Mr. Mander: It does not really matter, but, as a matter of fact, I made that remark.

Mr. Ede: May I say then that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) made the remark so unimpressively that I was first impressed by it when it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Spen Valley.

Mr. H. Beaumont: We know his opinion about Ambassadors, too!

Mr. Ede: With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, he made one point of considerable interest, and that was: What is to happen in the case of a child whose parents withdraw their permission for him to go? Parents will not accompany their children to the port of embarkation. They will part company at some collecting point near the child's home unless the child lives at the port of embarkation. The child will then be taken from the collecting point to the port of embarkation where he will spend the whole day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or her."] Yes. I hope I shall not have to say "or her" every time. In any case, I object to referring to a child as "it." The children will be taken to a hostel at the port of embarkation where there will be a final medical examination. We have been promised by the Dominions that if the child passes that examination, he will not be rejected on the other side of the water. We regard that as of the very highest importance. The medical examination that is now being conducted by the school medical officers is one that has been agreed by the Dominions, and it is very unlikely that there will be any large number of rejections at the port. A child may have contracted an infectious disease between the collecting point and the hostel, but it is unlikely that there will be any large number of rejections at the hostel at the port of embarkation.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will there be another examination when the child gets on the ship?

Mr. Ede: No, not when the child gets on the ship. The medical examination will take place at the hostel. I share the view, expressed by two or three hon. Members, that one does not want to take a child any further than is necessary if, in fact, he is going to be rejected.

Mr. Lunn: Does that mean that the parents will go to that collecting centre

where the medical examination is to be held?

Mr. Ede: No. There will be a medical examination at the school to which the parents will be invited and, from my knowledge, I think that nearly every child will be accompanied by a parent at that stage. We believe that that examination should be satisfactory, but anyone who has had any connection with moving children about, knows that as you move them about, some children have illnesses which were not revealed at an earlier stage. Therefore, a final examination will take place at the hostel. The parents will not be at the hostel. They will have left the children at the collecting point. A teacher will have taken the children from the collecting point to the hostel. If the child is rejected, and is not suffering from an infectious disease but is rejected for another reason, presumably the teacher will bring the child back to the parents' home.

Mr. Mander: My point was this. If a parent, having got to the collecting point, says, "I have changed my mind and I do not want the child to go," what happens?

Mr. Ede: Then the child will not go. We are arranging that there will be at the hostel on each occasion rather more children than will be required for that particular shipment. They will be arranged in an order of priority, and if a child drops out, another child who would not have gone till the next ship will move into his place. I do not think we can do more than that to ensure that the shipping space is fully used and that the children go in what may be a very arbitrary order of priority, but what the competent people have decided is the right order of priority.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: How are you going to guard against some children being excessively homesick? Can you sort them out a little before they actually embark?

Mr. Ede: I do not think we can deal with that. The parent has said that the child is to go, and we have said that the parent is to have the final word. If the child develops homesickness, one can only hope that it will get over it on the journey. I have had some experience in


handling children. I recollect a woman once bringing her grandchild to me, and saying, "This child may go with you on your ramble if you will undertake to hold his hand all the time." [An HON. MEMBER: "Did he hold your hand?"] I did not hold his. If the parent says that the child may go, the child will go. We are sending with these children people who have had great experience of handling children on this kind of journey. I have no doubt that they will prove equal to the occasion, and that there will he other children who will take very good care if they see other children feeling homesick to make them feel at home.

Mr. Mander: If the hon. Member is now dealing with my speech—or what he believes to have been my speech—will he deal with my question regarding the paragraph on page 3 of the report, recommending
that in future parents who are able to make their own arrangements for the evacuation of their children overseas should be required to obtain the permission of the Executive Body referred to at 3 (a) before they are allowed to leave the country.
Is that so?

Mr. Ede: I was going to deal with that. The answer is that that particular recommendation was not accepted by the Government. It was believed that it would be administratively impracticable, and therefore those words have no effect. I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell, with regard to nominations, that we have asked every parent to indicate on the form the name of any relative or friend in the Dominion who will be willing to accept the child. That is the first phase. That information will be passed on to the selected Dominion, and we are assured that they will make every effort to ensure that that wish shall be gratified. Of course, we on this side can give no absolute guarantee. Here, again, we are dealing with self-governing Dominions, but I have no doubt that if the nomination is known on the other side—and we hope that every effort will be made to make it known there—the receiving relative or friend will ask the Dominion Government that they may be given this child.

Mr. Lindsay: In respect of how many children up to date have such nominations

been made, and is there any machinery for bringing the contents of those forms to the attention of the authorities on the other side?

Mr. Ede: I had to explain to the hon. Member for Cardigan earlier that these forms have come in during the last two or three days in such huge numbers that it has been impossible to analyse them at all, and, frankly, we do not know at the moment how many such nominations there are. The question of machinery is governed by my previous answer. We are building up as we go along, in negotiation with the Dominions, the necessary machinery to deal with all the issues that are raised. This undoubtedly will be a matter to which we shall ask the Dominions to give very special attention. We cannot have it both ways. We can wait and produce a perfect scheme, and then what my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) says will happen—the bad weather will have arrived—or we can say that this is a scheme where we believe good will exists on both sides and we can get a sound working scheme made at the same time as we are selecting and collecting the children. We believe, and I think the general tenor of opinion in the Committee this evening is, that it is desirable to get on with the job, rather than that we should produce the perfect scheme some month ahead when it might be altogether too late.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), raised the difficult problem of the exchange restriction in the dollar countries. That is a Treasury matter upon which the Government have reached a decision. The same difficulties do not apply to the other Dominions. Children can go to South Africa, Australia and New Zealand without any of these difficulties. Payments can be made for these children monthly or quarterly or annually, as the case may be, without any problem of exchange arising. It is not possible for my hon. Friend or myself this evening, to say anything that would indicate that the Government are weakening on the embargo that they have imposed, with regard to those countries to which the dollar exchange applies.

Miss Rathbone: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, if the Treasury were satisfied that some arrangement could be made that met the dollar difficulty in the case of Canada, they had any other scheme, on the ground of shipping or anything else? Is it really the dollar difficulty that stands in the way?

Mr. Ede: This is the first time I have spoken from this Box. I do not know how other people get away with their speeches at this Box, but I seem to be an abject failure. I am trying to be as outspoken and explicit as I can, and that perhaps may be the reason for my failure. Surely the fact that we raise no objection in regard to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa is an indication that the Treasury embargo prevents us from doing what the hon. Lady would like, and that that is the only reason that we have against any proposal she has put forward this evening. I hope that is sufficiently explicit.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. H. Beaumont) for the very helpful speech he made. He showed not only a complete sense of the difficulties that confront us but also some sense of the efforts we have made to overcome these difficulties. We are exceedingly alive to the importance of one of the points he raised, namely, what is to happen to those children who reach the age when they could go into employment? Of course, that will not arise in the Dominions until some months have elapsed, but we recognise that it may very well present exceedingly delicate questions of adjustment as between the home supply of labour and this temporarily imported supply. We have already mentioned it to the High Commissioners and we believe that by the time it becomes a practical question, we shall in facing it be able to present a solution that will not be harmful to the children concerned. But I should be misleading the Committee if I did not make it quite plain that we do regard it as one of the most difficult and delicate questions that will arise in the course of the stay of the children in the Dominions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan made one remark which I completely failed to understand. He said he had heard that some members of the Government were sending their children

and women relatives to the United States and Canada and asked were they hampered by the same problems of exchange restrictions. I do not know what information the hon. Gentleman has, but I do not know of any such member myself. I am quite sure that no member of this Government will apply to himself a different ruling from that which will apply to the ordinary citizen of the country, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not make any suggestion that there is some way by which a member of the Government could "wangle" it while ordinary citizens could not.

Mr. O. Evans: I did not make any suggestion against any member of the Government. I only asked how it is that certain people, including, as I understand, relatives of members of the Government, were able to do this, unless they were dependent entirely upon the charity of their relatives and friends.

Mr. Ede: Although I would not exactly describe it as charity I understand it may depend upon the wealth of one's father-in-law on the other side of the water. There are some people who are able to stand the strain of entertaining their daughters, and the offspring of their daughters, more easily than others.

Mr. Hammersley: Is not that a little unfair? Is it not a fact that there are many charitable people in America who, to my knowledge, are offering to be completely responsible for children from this country? Is it not due to us to pay some kind of tribute to the great kindness which has been shown?

Mr. Ede: I think the hon. Member was in the Committee when the hon. Member for Cardigan made his speech. I was replying to a specific point, and I have said nothing this evening which could indicate that the Government do not regard with the utmost gratitude the generous gestures which are being made by individuals in the Dominions and the United States. I was making reference to a limited number of people and I do not think my remarks will be regarded by the Committee as being generally applicable to the United States. I have every reason to believe that a number of people there have offered most generously to take children whom they have never


seen before. I was dealing with a suggestion that these were people who were merely taking in relatives.

Mr. O. Evans: My hon. Friend has been interrupted so much that I do not wish to interrupt him again, but—!

Mr. Ede: You are doing it.

Mr. Evans: May I point out that I do know of a considerable number of cases where offers to take children have been received from friends in Canada and the U.S.A.? There are people who have received such offers and have hesitated to accept them because they did not want to burden the people who have made the offers. I suggest that the Government might give some facilities to enable money to be transferred in such cases.

Mr. Ede: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the English Universities. It is for the Treasury and the Government to take a decision on those matters, and neither my hon. Friend nor I can do more than announce what that decision is. I hope the Committee will feel that, faced with a very difficult and delicate situation, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs has produced a scheme which has evoked a very considerable response in this country, and that that response will itself be some evidence to the Dominions of the gratitude which this country feels to them. We hope it will encourage them to expand it on reasonable lines, and I want to say that, as far as we are concerned, we are thankful to the Committee for the way in which it has received the scheme to-day. We can assure hon. Members that we have listened with interest and great attention to the various criticisms and suggestions that have been made, and that we will bear them in mind in our negotiations with the Dominions and in the further framing of our scheme. We sincerely hope that the scheme will have two results; first, that it will enable both adults and children in this country or in the Dominions to play their part more appropriately in the war, and secondly, that it may have, as has been said by several hon. Members, a lasting effect on the relationships between this country and the great Dominions, and that in sharing the anxieties of this present time, we

may be laying the foundations of something that is happier and better than we have known before.

Mr. Lunn: May I have answers to my two questions? Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the children have to be compulsorily vaccinated and whether children are likely to be turned down because they wear spectacles?

Mr. Ede: With regard to vaccination, South Africa insists on it; the other Dominions do not. With regard to spectacles, I cannot give a definite answer, but I will have inquiries made. I do know that included in the medical test is an eyesight test, but whether that means that a child who wears spectacles will be excluded, I cannot say at the moment. I will let the hon. Member know.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Boulton.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1938.

Resolutions reported:
I. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1939, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £838,468 15s. 5d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
3,588,962
14
7


Total Deficits
…
2,750,493
19
2


Net Surplus
…
£838,468
15
5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services."

"That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1940; cols. 531–2, Vol. 362.]
II. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1939, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the


aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £72,181 10s. 1d., namely:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
1,005,621
15
7


Total Deficits
…
933,440
5
6


Net Surplus
…
£172,181
10
1

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services."

That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1940; cols. 533–4; W. 362.]

Resolutions agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.